India Should Designate a Special Envoy for Pakistan

Former President of United States Bill Clinton has re-defined the face of diplomacy by securing the release of Laura Ling and Euna Lee. Relations between the U.S. and North Korea have been at an all time low following the recent missile tests by the latter. Despite a strained relationship, Bill Clinton, supported by the U.S. diplomatic machinery, was successful in initiating the confidence building process with the North Korean leadership. Can India learn a lesson from the incident? Is it possible for India to designate a Special Envoy or diplomatic mission to break ice with Pakistan?
Special Envoy diplomacy is practiced by India on a less ambitious scale. Currently Shyam Saran is Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for climate change. After the postponement of Constituent Assembly elections in Nepal in 2007, India had dispatched a Special Envoy to the country to assess the situation. India is also considering appointing a special envoy to Sri Lanka following the recent anti-LTTE offensive by the Government. India had also appointed a Special Envoy to represent the country in international negotiations for structuring the post-Taliban regime in Afghanistan after the NATO operation in 2001.
Apart from these few examples, India has been conducting its foreign policy without much reliance on Special Envoys. Moreover whenever Special Envoys are appointed, the rationale is to accommodate top diplomats of the Foreign Office after retirement. For instance there is talk of appointing ShivShankar Menon, the just retired Foreign Secretary, as a Special Envoy for India’s troubled South Asian neighborhood. India has rarely, if ever, designated Special Envoys for pressing concerns of national interest. Given India’s intractable conflict with her Western neighbor does the country need to appoint a Special Envoy to Pakistan? Can appointing a Special Envoy help in conducting bilateral dialogue through the thick and thin of bilateral interactions?
What does a Special Envoy do? Special Envoys are impartial diplomats expected to conduct dialogue, reduce tensions and resolve disputes among states. The task of such envoys is to facilitate interactions among states and their visits are viewed as less politically contentious than exchanges between Heads of States or Foreign Ministry officials of states which are going through a rough patch. The agenda is clearly defined; possibly a single task and the envoys are supported by the entire diplomatic paraphernalia of the concerned state.
How is the visit by a Special Envoy different from that of the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister or Foreign Secretary in parliamentary democracies? Special Envoys are usually people who do not hold formal political or diplomatic posts in the Government but command respect in the international community. Their diplomatic skills and political sagacity along with expertise at conflict management are proven. Moreover, such individuals share a close relationship with the political leadership and members of the diplomatic community. An essential characteristic of the Special Envoy should be his/her eager acceptance in the host country. For example, Al Gore had played a very important role in securing the release of the U.S. journalists from North Korea, but Bill Clinton was dispatched to seal the deal because the North Koreans were keen on having him. Hence the personal equation of the Special Envoy with the political and diplomatic community of the host country need to taken into consideration before appointing such envoys.
Given the general overview it seems plausible even desirable for India to appoint a Special Envoy for dialogue with Pakistan. This would help to conduct bilateral dialogue beyond the political tensions and civil society pressures usually experienced between the two countries. The Special Envoy interactions could be made immune from the periodic lows in bilateral interaction and it would spare the two countries to regularly re-start the dialogue process. The political leadership could build upon the gains after the Special Envoy has prolonged the thaw and weeded out the initial disagreements. The plan sounds perfect for facilitating India-Pakistan dialogue.
But the next important question: who in India would fit into the role of a special Envoy for Pakistan? My choice, though many would disagree, is former P.M. Atal Bihari Vajpayee. He has demonstrated his willingness to address the Indo-Pakistan conflict during his tenure as P.M. and is widely respected in Pakistan. Moreover, the choice of Vajpayee would also help to develop the national consensus on Pakistan policy. The recent attacks by the BJP on the Sharm el-Seikh Joint Statement issued by P.M. Manmohan Singh has allowed India’s internal disagreements to play into the hands of Pakistani politicians. The cross-party discussion necessitated by the appointment of Vajpayee as Special Envoy would also promote wider political dialogue on foreign policy within the country. As of now the Government of India (irrespective of which Party is in power) informs and rarely explains foreign policy decisions rather than conducting discussion and debate on foreign policy alternatives.
However, India should not expect that appointment of a special envoy would resolve all contentious issues with Pakistan or check future terror strikes emanating from the Pakistani soil. The contribution of the Special Envoy is limited to improving the atmospherics; bilateral agreements will have to be made at the political level. India has employed all possible traditional approaches in resolving disputes with Pakistan but the results are sporadic and unstable. Some degree of innovation with regard to appointing a Special Envoy for Pakistan deserves a chance. Appointment of a Special Envoy for Pakistan would symbolize the maturing of Indian diplomacy.