news details |
|
|
| Foreign minister is a full-time job | | | - By S. Nihal Singh
The most important challenge Pranab Mukherjee, India’s new external affairs minister, will face is to manage contradictions. These relate to the accentuated imbalances in the world and New Delhi’s place in changing power equations. The somewhat comforting Cold War divisions ended years ago, but New Delhi’s efforts to build a special relationship with the sole surviving superpower have disturbed the essentially consensual nature of Indian foreign policy.
Let’s face it: the Manmohan Singh coalition government is functioning under many constraints, among them the dearth of talent in the foreign policy field at the political level. The fact that Mukherjee had to be plucked out of the defence ministry and still has a large footprint in managing domestic affairs speaks for itself. And it needed the Prime Minister nearly a year to fill Natwar Singh’s slot, with the former external affairs minister still sniping at the heels.
No Prime Minister, however brilliant, can manage foreign affairs in today’s complex world unaided, particularly at a time India is seeking to find a place in the sun and the constellations are favourable for a revisionist power. Thus far, the United Progressive Alliance government’s foreign policy has been highlighted by the July 18, 2005 Washington agreement between US President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, which has become mired in the controversial nuclear deal waiting for US Congressional approval.
There are no two opinions on the merit of cultivating good relations with the United States, despite the stark contradictions of President Bush’s enthusiasm for close India relations for his country’s interests and his selfish unilateral, hegemonic view of the world. Deep divisions in India have arisen over the price demanded of it in the nuclear deal and an overriding concern over New Delhi’s ability to maintain an independent foreign policy.
Some missteps by the Indian government are part of recent history. The Prime Minister must take the responsibility for fielding an Indian candidate for the UN Secretary-General’s post without doing his homework and hence weakening the country’s bid for the bigger prize of a permanent seat in the Security Council. Similarly, the fine-tuning in promoting the country’s larger interests in the troubled immediate neighbourhood has been missing outside the special treatment relations with Pakistan require.
Only a dynamic foreign minister on top of his job and possessing sufficient clout in the government can function effectively in a fast-changing world. Mr Mukherjee can measure up to his job if he devotes full attention to it, but the prevailing widespread belief that he wants zealously to guard his home turf and raking can do him and the country no good. There is no place for a part-time foreign minister in today’s world. To be effective, the foreign minister of a rising power such as India must become a modern travelling salesman. The bane of the former US secretary of state, Colin Powell, was that he was so mindful of guarding his home turf that he curtailed personal diplomacy at his country’s expense. His successor, Condoleezza Rice, is fast catching up with his travel miles in the short time she has been in the post.
India’s priorities in foreign relations are well known. They are in managing relations with immediate neighbours, building a special relationship with the US without being sucked into following its strategic view of the world, improve relations with Russia, China and Japan and give greater priority to the European Union for its potential power, if not its present status. Latin America is destined to play a greater economic and political role in the world and should be cultivated.
The problem is in following this multi-faceted approach while retaining domestic consensus. There is no reason why India should remain in the old groove of nonalignment, which itself is in the process of being redefined. Perhaps the US Houses of Congress will relieve India of the burden of the nuclear deal by refusing to endorse it. But the scope of building a close and mutually profitable relationship is immense and should be promoted. New Delhi will need to define the areas in which it disagrees with Washington without apology; friends can disagree without being disagreeable.
Perhaps what has been missing in Indian foreign policy has been the spark of vision, an overarching view of where the country is going and where it seeks to take the world. Jawaharlal Nehrus are not born in every generation, but dedication, hard work and vision can take India forward. The last thing India needs is a part-time foreign minister.
India needs to do a lot of homework in the broader field of foreign policy. There is growing recognition of the roles economic and trade relations and energy play in a world that has dramatically contracted in the Internet Age. Implementing these ideas is still very much a work in progress. Americans are great devotees of playing war games, sometimes to the point of absurdity. By the same token, New Delhi must surmount its inhibitions in envisaging different scenarios to test its own possible responses. The US "war on terror" has become a self-fulfilling prophecy in Iraq and is a catchall phrase to promote its foreign policy interests. India must stick to its own definition of terrorism even while accepting foreign help in countering it.
Diplomacy, they say, is the art of the possible but a good diplomat and foreign minister can stretch his country’s foreign policy options a considerable distance. If war is diplomacy by other means, it is far preferable to avoid the violent option through diplomacy. Apart from finding the right wavelength in promoting close relations with the US, India is still seeking to manage relations with Pakistan. The domestic storm raised by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s Havana meeting with President Pervez Musharraf agreeing on a joint mechanism to tackle terrorist attacks in India is a pointer to the difficulties in evolving a new relationship.
The Prime Minister’s effort to insulate the dialogue from individual acts of terrorism, often sponsored by establishment elements in Pakistan, touched a raw nerve in India. The history of the partition of the subcontinent accompanied by much bloodshed cannot be erased, but a capable and devoted foreign minister can explain policies in the national interest that grate on the collective memory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
