 Hello, everyone. Welcome to another capsule on International Relations of the Shankar IAS Academy. This is the time we are celebrating Asadika Amart Mahotsap. And this celebration of 75th year of independence will continue throughout the year. And you can naturally expect a vast amount of material available, making an assessment of the past 75 years and making projections for the future. In fact, the Prime Minister's idea is that this year should be used to envisage the centenary year of Indian independence. Where do we stand at 75 and where are we going to in 100? So a lot of material is already available, historic, political, cultural, social, all aspects have been analyzed and there's plenty of material available. In fact, I understand that from the Lalbadur Shastri Academy in Masuri that this whole year those who are joining the service will be treated as the Asadika Amart Mahotsap officers. And they will be given a new orientation, a new training program. In fact, the director wrote to all the new officers, recruited, the probationers, to expect a lot of unexpected things during this year. So that follows that those who are taking the examination this year also or early next year will also have to be prepared. We have a very clear understanding of the 75 years of India's independence. Of course, I shall refrain myself to speaking about foreign policy, where it stands and the way we came up to this point. So to start with the latest, we all know that the world is between two orders. One world order which has exhausted itself and become more or less irrelevant. And the new world order is yet to be born. So we are celebrating our 75th anniversary at a time of uncertainty. There are many imponderables in the world and we really do not know where the world is going. One may look back with nostalgia at the period of the Cold War when everything was predictable. But now nothing is predictable and we do not know what the new world order will be. The tendency is for everyone to weigh chances, balances, calculations and so on and remain unattached to any particular group or country and keeping all their options open. And that is the situation today. So we have to, as India, I believe, have to look at our policy over 75 years and see which portions of it or which are the elements in it which would remain valid even in a new world order. So a couple of things we can immediately identify. Though India has a very dynamic foreign policy, many things have remained constant. Many things are relevant and two of them. One is that we are expecting or working towards a multipolar world, neither a bipolar or unipolar world. And that one objective remains steady as far as we are concerned. How far we are to this kind of dream, we don't know. We will have to work for it. We have to go around the problems that we face today. All this is necessary to have some kind of an arrangement in which India becomes one of the poles of the world. The second thing that is always valid is the strategic autonomy. What we used to call non-alignment in the past during the Cold War. So after the Cold War, we have started calling it a much more realistic name in the sense that we are not non-aligned to anybody or aligned to anybody. But the more correct expression is that we are independent in thought and action. So this is something that we hold very dear. And whatever new world order is generated, we will probably stick to these two in spite of all the challenges we have. So but both these are under threat. The multipolar world as well as our ability to remain totally independent in foreign policy, these are not very easy to accomplish. But those remain our objectives and that gives us a fairly good basis to assess the 75 years of Indian independence and the foreign policy of today. So as I said, the situation is very fragile and there is a state of flux and everybody is soft balancing as they say some writers say or they are trying to remain neutral in certain cases and waiting for an opportunity for things to stabilize. But at the same time, each one of their countries, particularly the major countries are trying to shape the world order in their own according to their own dreams. And this is the most prominent country in the world today, which is trying to change the world according to its own calculations is of course China. But even the others, any country, if you look at you will find that each one, everyone is trying to figure out the future and try to influence the shape of the world, particularly the nuclear powers, the permanent members. All of them are interested, none of them is happy with the present situation as well as they have. Everyone has some issue or the other and all these have been considerably accentuated by the 9-11, by the economic crisis of 2008 then the pandemic and then the Ukraine war. There were many other developments, but these were perhaps the most important developments over the last 20 years. So these have all had a very tremendous impact on every country in the world. In fact, the humanity itself has changed after 9-11, after 2008 economic crisis, after the pandemic and during, you cannot say after yet, during the Ukraine war. So no one is happy with the situation as it is today and therefore there is this very serious effort being made by all of them. To assert themselves and try to shape the world according to their own dreams. And speaking of India's dreams, we know that we have always have seen ourselves as part of the global situation. The Vasuthayi-Dhava-Kudumbakam kind of approach. That is, of course, we want our own place in the international community. We want to be recognized as a powerful influence in the world, as a major economic power with a sufficient capacity for defence. And so we have our own dreams about India. We want to be a permanent member of the Security Council. We want to be self-sufficient in whatever we can do and also live at peace with the world. But in addition to that, Indian foreign policy has an element where we would like to contribute to the world rather than demand anything from the world. Because in the United Nations itself, our policy has not been to demand things, but to contribute our experience and to contribute to the global good. So that is what India has been trying to do, not to extract anything from the international community. Because the only time when we went with the problem to the UN was about Jammu and Kashmir. That was the time when we expected that the UN would resolve that problem. Therefore, we, with good intentions, went to the UN and sought UN's help. But last 75 years, we have seen that that is not possible. The UN is not a judicial body. It is not a democratic body. It is a body of nations interested in their own interests and welfare. And therefore, any issue which goes before the UN, particularly the Security Council, will be looked upon by these countries as a kind of occasion, opportunity for themselves to gain something out of the system. So that is what happened in the case of Jammu and Kashmir. When it came into the Security Council, each country, particularly powerful countries, wanted to look at it from the perspective of what it can gain from the Kashmir issue. What influence they can wield over Pakistan and India. And therefore, fairness was not there. Justice was not there. And therefore, we are more or less in the same situation as we were at that time. But Kashmir has moved on. We have moved on. And the United Nations, like in other issues, has become irrelevant in this matter. And this has taught us a lesson. After that, we have never taken an issue of concern to us to the UN. We speak at the UN basically about concerns of the universe. Big issues like terrorism or climate change or equitable distribution of wealth. These are the kind of areas in which we are working. So we are not seeking anything for ourselves. So in the sense that we co-operate, you know, develop cooperation within the United Nations, South-South cooperation, not South cooperation. So these areas that we are really working, you may remember that when we were president of the Security Council, we did several things which are of great importance to the world as a whole, not particularly for India. So that way, we are not seeking anything from the United Nations. So the United Nations, if it has become irrelevant that doesn't make much difference to us, we are still dedicated to peace and cooperation and stability. But the fact that the UN is weak has changed the attitude of the world towards it. And the biggest failure of the UN in recent years was at the time of the pandemic, that the UN could not involve the entire United Nations into that battle. Like it did in the case of HIV, AIDS or Ebola, it was not left to the WHO to deal with such crises. It was dealt with by the entire United Nations machinery. But because of China being a permanent member of the veto power, they did not allow the United Nations to even hold a meeting on the pandemic and therefore total disunity. So one of the basic difference today is that the world is not united on anything, not even in a crisis situation like that. Of course, after a couple of years after the pandemic came about, countries started cooperating. But in the beginning, you saw that there was no effort of multilateral approach. And we tried it with SAR, we tried with G20, but everywhere people were fending for themselves. And even the European Union did not work in unison at that time. Italians were running around others and there was no real cooperation. But it was built up, the Quad came into it, other regional organizations came into it. But multilateralism and the UN level failed miserably during the pandemic. Of course, 9-11 changed our security concerns. And it became obvious that military power or nuclear power is not enough to save your own country. Because what happened on 9-11, they did not use nuclear weapons or even guns. What they used was only knives and forts. So with that they were able to bring down a major nuclear power to its knees. And that's a lesson for disarmament and security and so on. So the new world order in security is also adrift. It is not yet settled down. A few months ago, the Permanent Five, I think it was early 2022, that the Permanent Members made a declaration about nuclear weapons in order to satisfy the non-nuclear weapon states. They said, you know, we will never use the nuclear weapons. Nuclear war is not winnable and should never be fought. This is what they said. But within a few months, we saw one of the Permanent Members saying that he is ready to use nuclear weapons if their wish for a new world order is not fulfilled. So that shows that the change in the world towards nuclear weapons has not changed. We are thinking in terms of global zero through disarmament. But who is talking about global zero? President Barack Obama talked about a world without nuclear weapons. He said, of course, not in my time, not in my lifetime, not in several years, but eventually the United States will not have to depend on nuclear weapons for security. But that's also forgotten. Nobody is talking about global zero. Nobody is talking about a world without nuclear weapons. They talk about disarmament. But disarmament, as you know, is a very slow process. And NPT and CTBT are both discriminatory. And so it is not fair on all the countries. It is still under the thumb of the Permanent Members. Then, of course, the Ukraine, the Russia-Ukraine war, or the Russian invasion of Ukraine to say it plainly, has also brought about big changes in the world. The first of the changes was the Russia-China friendship and their decision to work together, which has implications not only for Ukraine but also for Taiwan. And it has very great significance for us because disengagement in Ladakh has not taken place today. And the Russians, if they are going to support China in any such conflicts, then it won't be very new. Russia was never supported us against China. But at least they were trying to bring India and China together early at the time of the Ladakh crisis. But that is out of the way now. So we have to realize that the relationship with China, the structure has changed. All the agreements that we have reached with China, which enabled the border to be peaceful and tranquil, have been lost. And now we have to start from scratch, even the punch shield is not being respected. And China is holding on to its ground that they will do what they want to do. And the others just have to accept it. So on China, where will we go? What kind of negotiations will take place on the border? What will be their action? Because there are many ominous moves on their side of moving of troops and clearing of roads. And there is no sign of disengagement from the territory they have occupied in 2020. So we need a strategy for China. Pakistan also stands still because we are unable to have any kind of dialogue with them because unless they give up their terrorism, we are obliged not to deal with Pakistan. So that's a standstill. Sark is not active. And then other neighbors, we know the issues of Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, etc. So what we started, what Prime Minister Modi started with of the neighbors' first policy has not been very successful. So if you look at the balance sheet for India, as it is now, we can see that our problems have actually increased and not reduced as a result of the latest developments. Russia has been a friend and we continue to maintain that historic relationship. But that has raised problems with others. United States never brought in our relationship with Soviet Union as a hindrance to U.S.-India relationship. They are increasingly becoming more and more conscious of that. They will make it a test whether India is willing to turn away from Russia and be a good Quad member because Quad is supposed to be a very selective group which India is there. All the others are already military allies and therefore India has a very unique position in the Quad. So they are looking at it, whether we are going to change our policy towards Russia, because Russia stands condemned by the West for the aggression and Russia has not done well and therefore things could get worse. So even if you don't look at the rest of the world, for India itself, we are at a very important turning point. And obviously, maybe many things which we don't know publicly, the effort is being made to calm down all these problems, difficulties. Europe particularly has been anxious about India and they feel that we are bursting the sanctions and trying to help Russia in the war, which is not true. But still the Europeans seem to think that way and therefore there is pressure on us. At the same time, one sees reports about India planning various methods by which we can make payment arrangements for Russia. We can get oil without interruption. And these are things which are attracting adverse attention from the rest of the world. And even about the internal situation in India that concerns people say India is only 30% democracy or measuring it in terms of percentages and individual freedoms. All these have been raised by these countries. So we are not in a very happy position at the moment. And nobody, as I said, other countries are also not in a happy position. So everybody is trying to change the world and what exactly will come out of it. And therefore the issues of which require great attention like poverty, like the crisis in Sri Lanka or climate change and supply chain issues. So these are all the things that people should be discussing and finding ways for progress. But that's not where we are having. We are having these group meetings, G7 and G20 and others, but there is no unity there. Multilateralism has not worked very well in all these meetings. You get a G20, but somehow then, you know, make one, make a separate statement. You go to a CO, some of them make some separate statements. So these multilateral bodies meetings have proved to be divisive rather than cohesive. So that is a major, major concern. So when we look at, look back at our record of the last 75 years, I'm not going to great details. But we had a very golden period from 1947 to 1962 when India was considered a beacon of hope and peace and prosperity and we were helping the UN to shape itself. And then suddenly the Chinese aggression and our total defeat with the hands of the Chinese changed that completely because India was found to be weak and not determined, not decisive, etc. And therefore it became necessary, we had to move from an ideological phase to a pragmatic phase with Mrs Gandhi as the leader of that phase. And we became more closer to the Soviet Union that sold a lot of problem for us, but at the same time it created many problems. But we were not entirely, ideologically otherwise close to Soviet Union because of a pragmatic, practical relationship. We were able to supply things to Soviet Union and we were able to get what we needed, very heavy machinery and structures, etc. for India and exchange was possible. So we reached the rupee, a ruble arrangement which enabled us to conserve our foreign exchange and have our development without any obstruction. But that situation also changed with the collapse of the Soviet Union. For a little while, we were like today, bewildered by this situation because suddenly it became a more unipolar world and India by making a good approach and liberalized approach, Dr. Manmohan Singh and Sri V.V. Narasimha Rao, they got us out of that and liberalization, globalization, etc. Created an atmosphere for growth and India started growing at very high rates 10% to 11%. And so we survived that period. And in the unipolar world, like everybody else, we also got closer to the United States. The nuclear deal brought some solution to the nuclear issue, which was the most difficult because the United States was totally opposed to India not signing the NPT. And so the nuclear deal gave us an opportunity to develop our nuclear power without signing the NPT. That was a major achievement. It was a major concession by the United States. So that practical period then moved on to a globalized period in foreign policy because we opened up our markets and there became one of the biggest markets in the world. So countries of the world, companies, all of them started rushing to India. The largest number of visitors to India came at that time. And thus we gained by that. We were champions of globalization. We are not close like that now. And the US relations flourished at that time. When Mr. Narendra Modi became Prime Minister, he promoted the India US relations even further. And he declared in 2016 that there is a new symphony in the orchestra between the US and India. Then of course there was a setback when President Trump came about but we survived that and Trump became a friend rather than a rival. And that phase also was over. President Biden of course hasn't had the chance to come to India but our Prime Minister visited the United States and we have some basic understanding. But the Democrats generally are not happy with India's human rights record. And so at this time they are not very worried about that because they have their own war and their hands. And so but there is no clear signal from the United States that India is a natural priority for them. But as a Quad member we expect and they expect close cooperation and the Quad has moved away from the idea of containment of China although that was part of the philosophy but they moved on to other issues like climate change and the pandemic and supply chains etc. So certain model of cooperation has been built up. So people are now looking outside the UN, group links which have no veto power and they are the ones which are playing some role in the international community in the multilateral world. But as far as UN is considered our message is very clear. UN is, particularly Security Council is not representative of the world of 2022. It is still in the world of 1947. So we want to reform multilateralism. We want to reform United Nations. But there is no formula today by which everybody will agree to a kind of change. So the UN is completely at sea. They are doing the usual normal peace activities, development activities, whatever resources they have. But beyond that it does not play a role in world affairs anymore. People are looking at things from different perspectives. And so the Russia Ukraine war, nobody knows how long it will go on and what the end result will be. But now increasingly people are saying that Russia is gaining ground. And that is dangerous because that means that Russia will not want to ceasefire. It will not want to go back to the negotiating cable. And the West will have to multiply their support to Ukraine and give them all the amps and ammunition and money. One month Ukraine spends much more than what Sri Lanka wants to clear their debts. That is the scale. People are dying in Sri Lanka because they have no resources. And Ukraine all the resources are being wasted and people are still dying. So that is the irony of the situation. And India had no choice but to not to remain neutral, but to remain conscious of the two sides and at the same time ask for a just and fair solution. That's why India has been repeatedly asking for a ceasefire and negotiations. But nobody seems to be listening to us. They have their calculations. Virtually every Prime Minister or President must approach Mr. Putin by now. But he doesn't seem to consider himself unable to do any kind of advice. We don't even know what his objective is. What is his victory for him? We don't know yet. At each stage we thought that this would be enough for him. But then he will ask for more and more. And so we are also in a situation where we are not able to take any major initiatives in the international field. So as I wrote the Hindu the other day, I said that there is not much point in going to all these multilateral forums except to make our presence felt. That is necessary. But reforming these multilateral forums from inside does not appear to be very possible because the time is not right. Once the global situation stabilizes and the permanent five and the other big countries find their places and feel themselves comfortable, the new order cannot be established. And that is the unfortunate part. In summary what I'm saying is that the golden period or the ideological period is past. We are moved on to a pragmatic period. Then we went into a globalized period. And then with Mr. Modi we reached a kind of assertive period because he started demanding rather than requesting countries to cooperate with us. Because he has the sense that India is a major important country and we are not there to seek any kind of concessions. We are asking for our rights that is his approach. But he failed to get the permanency. He failed even to get the membership of the nuclear suppliers group because the reality of the world is such that these things are not given easily. And the NPT and CTBT are still staring at our face and saying and people will say we are happier if you still signed the NPT and so on. But we have stood our ground. So that is the basic thing that we can say. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had three or four major objectives development, security, neighborhood and diaspora. So in all these areas he has made many initiatives. They have made life different for all these people but you cannot say that he accomplished all this. The first term looked better and towards the end it was the nationalism and Pakistan and all that which helped him to win the election. But after that there are so many issues and the global issues facing him. So but as I said when we started we have all these, you know, like the idea of a multi-polar world is one, strategy, autonomy is one and we are trying to apply those principles to the current situation. And of course we don't know the details but we need to be prepared for China's expansionism. We are not able to impose sanctions on China because we are dependent on China. The Russians may be prevented from giving us more military equipment by the big powers in various ways and we ourselves may not want to associate ourselves totally with Russia and help the war effort. So a very, very careful balance is being taken. And sometimes India sounds combative because we fight for our rights. We fight for what is right and what is just. But that's not what other countries want. The other countries want accommodation. The other countries want you to understand their problems. And then that race, you know, it may happen that we may have to again rethink how we approach these countries. Because totally independent foreign policy is not a practical way because you need things from other people. No country is in the world self-sufficient. We can argue a point here, a point there. But to win over the world, you need accommodation. You need a negotiation. You need compromises. So we'll go into that process once the world is stabilized. So it is fair to say that, you know, we are caught between two worlds. One world which is dying out and the other world has not emerged as yet. And that is the uncertainty of the present situation. And that makes foreign policy activities more difficult. But things can change and we can expect that they are sticking to our principles and also following certain policies of giving importance more to global issues rather than individual issues. I think India may come out successful in the future. How long? Nobody knows. How much? Nobody knows. But we have certain strengths and those will come into play eventually. India's advice will be heard, I'm sure. Like it happened in the case of the economic crisis in 2008 because Dr. Manmohan Singh who set the agenda. So similarly we may be able to set the agenda for the future. So it is tough but not impossible for India to come out successfully in this crisis. Thank you very much. I mentioned to you that I have written a book on the foreign service for specifically the purposes of aspirants. And that book is available in the Shankar bookstore. There's only a 142 page book. It was only 250 rupees. So I have said a lot about this in this forum. What do you mean interfere? We have to fight with all this. Every decision has to be fought. The point I was making was that international cooperation which was available at the time of HIV is not available at the time of Corona. And that is sad. And the reason is China. China prevented the United Nations from taking any action about Corona. And that is a sad commentary on the world situation. That is not only a hypothetical question, that is an unlikely situation too because China is not only a rival but also an adversary. So I cannot visualize any situation where we've joined hands with China or whatever good it is. We have cooperated with China many times on several issues, trade. In fact India and China were on the same side in the WTO. And also we were on the same side in the time of climate change. But even those have changed. And the problem with China is our fundamental structure for relationship with China. We have to build it all up. But we'll find ourselves on the other side of China for a long time to come. I have no expectation. I've already mentioned how the P5 countries are not working in the interest of the UN. They don't consider it important. But at the same time they want to retain their domination of the organization. And so they are moving the chess board in order to shape it according to their own calculations. So you have just witnessed in Chennai the world chess championship. So it's a very intricate exercise and it takes a long time in a lot of patients. But everybody is engaged in finding things for themselves inside the UN and outside. Any reform will be in the interest of the powerful people. And so P5 and etc. and the UNO are not very helpful like this particular country. Because if you look at all these statements coming out of these recent conferences, they are all old ideas, not new ideas. And so what's the point in just reproducing what you have said before? And they don't have the courage to say anything about what is happening today. So that's a difficult question. New Quad is, I suppose you are referring to India, Israel, US and UAE, I presume. Because that is a new Quad. And of course it has the other name, I2U2. So maybe it is not Quad anymore. But it is also, you know, the Americans have a Quad in Central Asia also. So this is fashionable. But the real Quad, as you know, is not yet an electric fact, but it was designed like that. And that is why another focus came in because it was not really working very well. So nothing much to be said about this. New Quad is, if you are referring to I2U2, then that is potential. And they have chosen certain areas, food, manufacture, investments and so on. So that's hope it works. No, we cannot say that we are walking in the same path. We are fundamentally committed to the principles of the country. And the two things, the multipolar world and the strategic autonomy are very important. But I cannot, having followed several Prime Ministers and their foreign policy, I cannot say that we are not making changes. We have made important changes and that is necessary in a dynamic world. As I said, independent foreign policy is not so easy. That only somebody like Paul Pot or Navian who can do independent foreign policy don't care less for the rest of the world. But that's not how India is doing it. We are trying to be firm but polite and want to be accommodative. But India's future has to be bright because we have all the ingredients of it. We have a big population, we have a democratic dividend. The young people are full of energy. In fact, I was having a conversation with a Nobel Laureate, Dr. Mohammad Elberaday of the atomic energy agency. And he present a very gloomy picture. And then I asked him, so what for the future? He said, our children. Because he says that our children are not influenced by all these prejudices that our generation has. Past, community, religion, you know, all kinds of divisive forces. But you talk to your children, they are not even aware of it. They are only thinking of what they can do to contribute. So he said, the future is bright because the young people will be cleverer than we are. We may have to apologize to them for not doing enough for them. But what can you do? So they have to grow up and claim their own position and they'll be more principled. They'll be more balanced and they'll be technologically more equipped. So as for the future of India, I have no doubts. But we are at the moment in an uncertain period as far as foreign policy is concerned. New Delhi, Beijing's New Delhi policy is of domination. It's a question about they want to alter the borders unilaterally. They have no signal of compromise or fairness or resemblance. So that is our first study. Most important headache is China for the next 30-40 years. Till we also reach that level of development. Because at the moment it is not an equal battle. 5 trillion is what we are dreaming about. And they already crossed 15 trillion. So where do we stand? And look at the army, look at the nuclear capability, all that. So it's not a balanced relationship. So it will have its own problems. Well, there is no conflict between multilateralism and regionalism. And regional arrangements are mentioned in the UN Charter. Because the world, all issues of the world cannot be handled by the United Nations from New York. So regional countries have to chip in in order to solve this problem. Like for example, African quarrels and issues. First of all, they are very sensitive. They don't want others to deal with it. So they decide to go to the Organization of African Unity. Or now it is called African Union. It's only in name. So regionalism is not in conflict with multilateralism. But as I mentioned in my presentation, what I was saying was that because the UN is not working effectively. We are saying UN is functioning. But it's not functioning effectively. And terrorism is one example. The pandemic is another example where the United Nations is not effective. Not even preventing wars. And so that is why people are looking for alternatives. Because people think that it is the veto which is creating the problem. So they are looking at organizations without veto. Like G20, nobody has a veto. General Assembly, there is no veto. So therefore people are looking at alternatives. But UN is indispensable for various other things. Specialized agencies, development, atomic energy and food security. There are several things that the UN does. And so it will remain valid. But definitely these regional groups and groupings will become stronger. But even in these regional groups, the unity is not visible at this time. And that is my concern. Yes, the trend today, it looks as though it is in a way, a conflict is inevitable and other weapons may be used. But people are wise and hopefully that danger will not come. And that is why problems have to be resolved all the time. To prevent the necessity for conflict and necessity for use of nuclear weapons. And that is something which people have to bear in mind all the time. And so certainly nuclear war has to be avoided. Even threat of nuclear wars should be avoided. And that is why we have the no first use principle with some of us subscribed to. And more and more countries come to that no first use principle like Pakistan, United States or others. Then we will be better off as far as nuclear situation is concerned. But 80% is an underestimate. More than 80% will die. And the world will be somewhat desolate. But at the moment there is no thermal issue for us to intervene. We are simply helping to rebuild those regions. And there is no conflict. The Tigers have gone away. The Sri Lankan government is pretending that it's a united country and everybody is the same. But now that is not the focus. The focus is on poverty and disaster. And so thermal issues that are not relevant anymore. Everybody has to work together in Sri Lanka and be from outside. For all the people of Sri Lanka, not just for the Tamas. So the Tamil situation has completely changed. Nobody has the time for Tamil and Sri Lanka because of the other preoccupations. Otherwise the whole world would have come to Sri Lanka's help at this point. But it is not even newspaper reports in the West. They say, aha, Sri Lanka, India and China can sort it out. That is the approach they take. So a race or Tamil issue is not on the front line now. It is rescuing singhalis and tunnels from total disaster. And nobody seems to raise a hand for that. That is the strategy. Well, as of now it doesn't look possible because we are unable to change even a word in the United Nations Charter. So there is no agreement for an alternative. People are talking about alternatives but then they come back to the original. So why destroy something which is available even if it is not very effective. And it has certain values as a moral force, as a developing agency. But building a new United Nations will mean a big change. And I don't think we are ready for it yet. Imagine another San Francisco conference. Then it was only 51 countries, not just 193 countries. Imagine sitting down and writing a new charter. That would be rather impossible. Now I think Belt and Road initiative is countering itself. It is not fashionable anymore. Of course, everybody in the world has joined it except India. But everybody is skeptical about its objectives. And after what happened in Sri Lanka should be a lesson to everybody. And there are other countries who are doubts about that. So we don't need to counter and we simply have to keep out of it and develop with our own priorities. But alternatives are being looked for. US is talking about some kind of a building of structures like the one in your communications and so on. There's also thinking of counter, but we are not thinking of any counter measures. What we don't like is that this kind of dumping money and technology and Chinese workers in these countries and creating debt traps. We are not attracted by it. And most other countries also come into that. So I have a feeling that Belt and Road initiative will gradually disappear. And of course the Chinese will come up with something after the President Xi becomes the life president of China later this year. And more things will happen and more ideas will come up. Please read my book to understand the increasing relevance of the foreign service. In the last chapter, I have referred to diplomats not as ambassadors, plenty of potential and extraordinary. Those are the old days. Now we have the share pass. There is an official designation for the G20 meeting, for example. The former CEO of NETIO is the share pass. As you know, you may have heard. And now all the world over, major initiatives, major conferences, etc. The chief diplomat is a Sharpa. Sharpa, as you know, is people who work hard and don't reach the summit, but the summitiers get all the credit. So diplomacy has changed its role. We don't have a role of deciding everything and declaring wars and peace. That's over because presidents and prime ministers talk to each other. What we need to do is to prepare the ground for them to come together and bring about a change. And that role is much bigger than the ceremonial role that we have. So that is how I see it. This is the time that the foreign service and diplomatic service is much more relevant and much more effective and much more needed. This is the whole purpose of my book. It's explaining why the global situation demands greater efficiency from the diplomats. And that's why I regret that the best in the list do not opt for the foreign service. So my whole plea is that please understand what the foreign service is. We show you take a decision for or against. Even take a decision against it, you need to know what it's all about. So I hope you read the book and then we can have another discussion. Thank you very much. Reactive session. Thank you.