OPEN FORUM
New Delhi, 3 August 2009
Foreign
Office Challenges
NEED FOR OUT-OF-BOX
IDEAS
By Prakash Nanda
On
assuming charge on 1 August, the new Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, said that
“though our foreign service counts among the best in the world, in a rapidly
evolving world situation, the task is to further augment our diplomatic and
professional capabilities as we are called upon to play an even more prominent
role in world affairs. This will be an important area of focus in my new
responsibilities”.
Although,
Rao did not say it in so many words, it is undeniable that that apart from the
continuing relevance of traditional diplomacy, which, in essence, deals with
political and security interests of the country, economic diplomacy,
environmental diplomacy, public diplomacy, increasing need of accountability of
the Foreign Office to the Parliament and media are all equally significant in
this age of globalisation.
The new Foreign Secretary has expressed
confidence that she is looking forward to dealing with all these complicated
issues and that her task is going to be “absorbing”. While one wishes her all
the best, it is relevant to ponder over whether the ever-increasing
inter-actions of New Delhi
with the outside world should be the sole responsibility of the Indian Foreign
Office.
If the country has done well by the Government
not holding any more “the commanding heights of economy”, will it not be better
if likewise the Foreign Office changes its mindset of occupying the commanding
heights in matters pertaining to external affairs and shares the responsibility
with other organisations, both Governmental and private?
This is not to suggest that the Foreign Office
is no more relevant. The point is that as is happening in other parts of the
world, the Foreign Office can retain the driving seat in the country’s
international behaviour by metamorphosing itself “from the role of the
gate-keeper, to that of the coordinator”.
In fact, some foreign offices have already
evolved to the next stage, “the networked catalyst”. For instance, Germany has
allowed its provinces to deal in many matters directly with European Union.
Some border-provinces in China
have been empowered to deal with the neighboring countries on some economic
matters.
So has been the case with many ASEAN and Latin
American countries. In fact, Australia
has gone to the extent of replacing its trade commissioners in its American
consulates with US nationals under the belief that they would better sell the
Australian products and interests --- and thus save money!
Secondly, as the U.S. and leading European nations
have proved, it is much more productive if the inputs to the foreign
policy-making come freely from media, think tanks, universities and civil
society.
Of course, in India these institutions, compared
to their western counterparts, are relatively poor; and that is because most of
them continue to be fed by the External Affairs Ministry in some form or the
other (most of the personnel in our think tanks are former Government officials).
Besides, the Official Secrets Act is a huge impediment. It sustains broader
closed-door culture of the foreign policy bureaucracy that must be eliminated.
But it is a transitory phase and these
non-Governmental institutions are bound to play a more decisive role in days to
come through the judicious use of the 2005 Right to Information (RTI) Act that
might offer scholars a chance to access Government documents that have long
remained off limits.
Otherwise too, with the increasing globalisation
of the country’s economy, foreign policy matters are now affecting the
day-to-day lives of the ordinary citizens and thus becoming electoral issues.
As a result, Parliament, unlike in the past, is witnessing more debates on
foreign policy and its suggestions or inputs can no longer be ignored.
On the other hand, it is equally worth questioning the
health of the Foreign Office itself. The fact remains that the Indian Foreign
Service (IFS), whose personnel run the Foreign Office and manage the country’s
external relations, is a remarkably small service, given India’s global
aspirations. With fewer than 800 professional
diplomats (though total staff of the Ministry is about 3500, professional
diplomats number about 700).
Not only that. It’s an annual budget of just
over half a billion dollars in fiscal year 2006–07, the service is stretched
across 119 resident missions and 49 consulates around the world. In contrast,
the Chinese Foreign Office has a total strength of 4500 and the country spends
1.23 billion dollars every year. The corresponding figures for Germany are 6550 and 3.2 billion, UK 6001 and 3.7 billion, Japan 5500 and 2.92 billion, the US 19667 and 10
billion.
Additionally, though the IFS still attracts talented
youngsters and has drawn platitudes for its competence, the overall impression
in other State Capitals is that Indian diplomats are essentially reactive, not
pro-active. American expert Stephen Cohen once titled a chapter on Indian
diplomacy as “India
which says No”, his reasoning being that Indian diplomats often reflect “a
defensive arrogance and acute sensitivity to real and perceived slights”.
Unlike foreign services of the developed countries, the IFS
does not have any provision for a lateral entry into the service at middle levels
from think tanks, universities, corporate sector and media, even for short
durations. It may be noted here that the U.S. allows a small number of positions in its
Foreign Office to officers from other allied countries, including France and the UK,
as a means to expose these officers to Washington’s
labyrinthine bureaucracy.
The US also has a hiring category of
“technical appointee,” designating individuals who are neither permanent civil
servants nor political selections vetted by the White House. These technical
appointees serve a maximum of four years and offer outside expertise ---
academic, scientific, or private sector --- that might not otherwise reside in
the bureaucracy. In return, appointees benefit from seeing the internal
processes of the US Government. A programme of this sort in the IFS is worth
considering.
Moreover, after 1966, no significant administrative reforms
have been undertaken in the Foreign Office. Recall, that year the former MEA
Secretary General N R Pillai, had presented a report, which has been partially
implemented. In May 1983, the Samar Sen Committee gave a report on
strengthening the Indian Missions abroad, but it was not implemented.
In 2000, the then External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh
had asked senior officials for a report on reforms in the service. His
successor Yashwant Sinha who wanted to strengthen economic diplomacy, appointed
a committee under NK Singh to suggest ways. But nothing came from the moves of
these two Ministers. The reason? Neither of them stayed long as Foreign
Minister to implement their ideas.
The moral of the story: It is time for fresh ideas and
approaches. As an emerging global power, India must not hesitate to take all
the remedial steps to reinforce all its diplomatic tools, including the foreign
office. ----- INFA
(Copyright,
India News & Feature Alliance)
|