2009 in the Indian Diplomacy: Watershed or overhyped?
(the expanded version of this comment is on the IPCS website as a Issue Brief)
It is a glass containing 50 percent water of its actual capacity. It is going to depend on one’s perspective whether one sees a glass half full or half empty. The larger trend about India’s diplomacy in the 2009 is the story of the perspectives as divergent as about the glass! The 26/11 dossier, elections, Sharm al Sheikh, State visit to United States, Copenhagen and twittering are some of the keywords of the diplomacy from the year gone by. In 2009, India’s diplomacy and foreign policy was a mix bag with equal mix of the positives and the negatives.
The year 2009 began in the backdrop of 26/11. The Indian Prime Minister chose not to go to war with Pakistan over that issue. History will judge his wisdom on this decision but as of now he seems to have taken right steps vis-à-vis the terrorism emerging from Pakistan. The year began with the handing over of the 26/11 dossier to Pakistan and the subsequent denial by Pakistan of its claims. India did not succumb to Pakistan’s doublespeak and kept the faith in its diplomatic stance despite the efforts to provoke India. Military confrontation with India would have given Pakistan enough reason to divert its attention from its volatile western frontiers and could have eased pressure from the United States. This action convinced the world about India’s seriousness in dealing with Pakistan as India only targeted rogue elements in the Pakistan state and not the entire state as such. Its success in getting the culprits of the 26/11 to justice is however questionable as the lack of transparency in Pakistan’s legal process coupled with the political influence is delaying the process and is likely to keep doing as such in order to divert attention from the issue.
Recognition of the G 20 as a successor to G 8 highlighted the growing importance of India in the world politics. However, it will still take long time till India is able to direct the agenda and the thinking of this new grouping. Until that time, India should learn to use the group to balance its power with the responsibility that the membership to that group brings.
As the first state guest in the Obama presidency, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh represented India’s importance for the United States as a rising power. Its geostrategic highlight is in the fact that India is situated between the US partner in the war on terror on one hand and its economic partner and biggest competitor on the other.
The next big moment, and the biggest controversial one, was the Sharm el Sheikh joint statement between India and Pakistan. The loosely drafted text allowed Pakistan to divert attention from India’s concerns to its political advantage and to the diplomatic embarrassment of India. As a result more efforts were wasted in the face saving exercise than in the drafting of the statement in the first place. The Sharm-el-Sheikh should remain a lesson in ‘how not to’ for the future efforts of similar kind.
China remained the major focus inside India for its alleged acts of intrusions across the disputed border and its other activities that were against India’s national interest like its antics in the Asian Development Bank’s loan for projects in Arunachal Pradesh. Equally irritant was the case of stapled visa case for the residents of Jammu and Kashmir and the plans to divert the Yarlung Tsangpo. China’s growing strategic confidence about its capabilities regards Taiwan seems to have given it more reasons to prick the Indian leadership and test its reactions for such provocations. While India raised its concerns in the appropriate channels, such instances should also be analysed in retrospect to check inter-institutional coordination inside the country and ensure that no loose ends exist. In the course of the future, India will have to engage more with China in order to raise the stakes for such acts.
The United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen has already been analysed a lot. While there are many trying to project Copenhagen as India’s entry to the big league, the larger picture remains somewhat different. There is no reason to celebrate the ‘success’ of Copenhagen accord as the accord is the potential burial of the Kyoto process by the admission of the Prime Minister’s envoy himself. If India has to enter the big league by leaving aside its trusted allies in G77 then its rise to power status is nearly meaningless. What would power after all be if there are to be no supporters to the ideas about the world order emerging from India?
Through the year, the use of the social networking by one of the ministers in the government has attracted a mixed reaction. While some of his messages were quite offensive, the use of electronic media as the means of communication is bound to increase in the days to come. It offers an excellent opportunity for the policymakers to test the waters before implementing the policy. It can also be used against the rigidity of the procedures that ails the functioning of the government itself. This space is bound to get more interesting in the days to come for sure.
The general elections for Lok Sabha in 2009 gave a verdict that surprised many. The ruling UPA got even stronger majority with the core of the UPA getting increasing its share even as some of its earlier alliance partners lost out. As a result, the UPA II government appeared more confident than its predecessor. However, this did not reflect in any bolder policy shifts. On the whole, the entire report card of the year gone by appears to be tilting towards the negative and as such reflects the lack of long term perspective.
A rising India will have to engage with the world on more and more issue areas. It needs to be seen how it manages its power requirements and responsibilities with the circumstances that are offered from time to time. A bold and confident diplomatic style will help India in achieving this objective.
Comments