Archive for the ‘Foreign Policy’ Category
Time to make India’s Afghanistan Policy Relevant for the Endgame
India’s Afghanistan policy is a classic case displaying the pros and cons of soft power approach in international relations. Soft power is fruitful as a continuum of the smart power strategy where hard power is purposefully used. Soft power is helpful in creating space for and sustaining hard power options. A strategy that rests only on soft power resources to achieve national interests is flawed.
Secretary Clinton Nudges India to Embrace the Leadership Role
For many in India, Secretary Clinton’s visit this week was reassuring; reassuring that India was still United State’s most favored partner in the region. Secretary Clinton’s visit was part of the second annual India-U.S. Strategic Dialogue initiated last year. Strategic dimension of the interactions received maximum attention in the media and among analysts. The insistence on need for India to engage in leadership diplomacy in Asia was warmly welcomed. Moreover, agreements on small ticket items demonstrated the growing strength of bilateral relations.
India-Pakistan Talks Focus on CBMs
Under the resumed dialogue process, the Foreign Secretaries of Pakistan and India met in Islamabad, on 23-24 June 2011 for bilateral talks on Peace and Security including Confidence Building Measures (CBMs), Jammu and Kashmir and promotion of friendly exchanges. In India –Pakistan relations, where atmospherics are as important as actual diplomatic agreements, the meeting was surprisingly cordial. Held in the backdrop of David Headley trial and the incident involving PNS Babar and INS Godavari in the Gulf of Aden, the meeting managed to avoid distractions. It struck out as rather routine minus the usual fireworks expected when Indian and Pakistani delegates meet. Click to continue…
India Seeks to Engage with Africa by Distinguishing itself from China
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s recent visit to Africa received extensive attention in the Indian media. Prime Minister Singh attended the second India-Africa Forum Summit in Addis Ababa on May 24th and 25th and visited Tanzania thereafter. The visit was used not only to demonstrate India’s commitment to Africa’s development needs but also highlight the strategy of engagement. As observed by Sudha Ramachandran, “India’s partnering in Africa’s development while laudable is not wholly altruistic”; it serves India’s diverse foreign policy interests. The strategy, however, is of greater significance. The focus is no longer limited to competing with China but on demonstrating the difference in partnership approaches pursued by India and China. Jairam Ramesh, India’s Minister for Environment and Forests, had referred to this difference during the First India-Africa Forum Summit in 2008 when he stated that, “The first principle of India’s involvement in Africa is unlike that of China. China says go out and exploit the natural resources, our strategy is to add value.”
Do’s and Don’ts for India After Osama bin Laden’s Death
The U.S. operation that led to the killing of Al-Qadea leader Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad earlier this week has stirred a hornet’s nest. While details of the operation continue to pour in each day, the sentiment that “Pakistan has some explaining to do” is gaining force. Pakistan’s Ambassador to U.S. Husain Haqqani, has appeared on more television shows that I can count and attempted to defend Pakistan. Though I may disagree with his analysis, I am much impressed by his diplomatic abilities. After all diplomacy, even in the age of nuclear weapons, is the best tool to defend a country’s interests. This led me to explore India’s diplomatic response to Operation Osama and the larger issue of fighting terrorism in the region. While there is much discussion within the country on how should India deal with the situation, here is a list of diplomatic do’s and don’ts for India.
India Secures Non-Permanent Seat at United Nations Security Council
The news of India’s election as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council was reported with a sense of elation by the national media. Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna referred to it as a “chance to prove worth” for the big throne indicating India’s claim for permanent membership of the Security Council. The South Bloc is also excited about the fact that Pakistan voted in favour of India’s membership. The enthusiasm though comprehensible needs to be tempered.
K.P. Nayar takes us inside India-Pakistan Statement at Shar-el Sheikh
K.P. Nayar’s excellent piece takes us inside the Sharm-el Sheikh Statement.
For those who missed out on what Sharm-el Sheikh was, though it seems improbable to do so, here is brief backgrounder: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Yousaf Gilani met at the sidelines of the NAM Summit at Sahrm-el Sheikh last month and issued a Joint Statement. Both leaders affirmed their resolve to fight terrorism and co-operate with each other in the Joint Statement issued at Sharm el Sheikh. There was also agreement to share real-time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threat. The Joint Statement further added that “action on terror should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed” and that “terrorism is the main threat to both countries.” India also sought to address Pakistan’s anxieties on Baluchistan by emphasizing non-involvement in the internal disturbances.
Here is how the Government of India conducted itself in the first major bilateral interaction after the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. The following piece appeared in the August 25th edition of The Telegraph.
A typical conversation with an Indian ambassador, or any Indian diplomat for that matter, in the last five weeks began with the diplomat asking in obvious disbelief: “How did this happen?”
The “this” in the question is a reference to the Sharm-el-Sheikh joint statement of July 16, which put it on record that Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani “mentioned” to Manmohan Singh “that Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas”. The implication was that the threats came from India in the form of cross-border terrorism. Click to continue…
Finally the Indian Foreign Service Opts for Change
On July 17, I posted an article “Daniel Markey on Developing India’s Foreign Policy Software.” The Indian Foreign Service (IFS) seems to have taken Daniel’s recommendations seriously, though there is no explicit mention of it. In a news report carried in the August 11 edition of The Economic Times, winds of change are sweeping India’s foreign office. The proposed reforms are impressive but any tangible change will depend on genuine and consistent implementation.
The elite IFS that powers India’s global diplomacy and manages relations with nations is changing. Mid Career training and specialization are the new mantra. Promotions were a matter of aging gracefully, but now even senior diplomats have to prove themselves to move up the career ladder. In a never-before event, 30 joint secretary rank diplomats - or mid-career diplomats - due for promotion were sent to the Indian School of Business, the country’s top business school, at Hyderabad to reorient them to the new challenges of economic diplomacy in a business-driven world. Click to continue…
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? Click to continue…
Diplomacy comes to Rescue India’s Foreign Policy: A Case of Tharoor as External Affairs Minister
I have for long held the view that India’s foreign policy lacks diplomacy. India has failed to realize that foreign policy is about protecting national interests while diplomacy is about how these interests are protected; foreign policy is more about objectives while diplomacy is about strategy. Foreign policy has a strong element of continuity; diplomacy is expected to be dynamic. So far India’s foreign policy has sought to achieve most of the traditional objectives that any nation-state aspires for – territorial integrity, augmentation of national power and prestige, carving a leadership role in international affairs. But there has been something amiss in India’s foreign policy. In my analysis what India lacks is the force of diplomacy in communicating her foreign policy objectives to the world and ensuring international support for the same. India has not been able to translate the strengths of her national democracy and economy as stimulants for generating regional and international respect and awe. India has for long aspired for a leadership role but has not been able to project itself as nation whose leadership the region and the world desires; former is the task of foreign policy, the latter of diplomacy.
Fortunately now it appears to me that diplomacy is all set to characterize the next phase of India’s foreign policy. My hope emerges partly from the recent mandate for political stability in the country but primarily from a related development. Shashi Tharoor has been elected as Member of Parliament from Thiruvanathapuram. Click to continue…