After Narendra Modi came to power, the Indian government has increased its international engagements in an attempt to enhance India’s image on the global stage. While the results of this can be debated, it is clear that by prioritizing foreign policy, Modi has expressed a clear desire for India to play a more prominent role in shaping global rules and norms.
Countless visits abroad, and developing warm and often personal relations with world leaders has not only increased his visibility but strengthened his position as one of the most powerful leaders in the world. Critics, though, ask whether such an individual-driven approach has translated into proportionate and tangible results for Indian interests. Modi's frenzied visiting and “eventing” have led to accusations of the transactional nature of his diplomacy, which has become a global trend in recent years. Modi's political opponents have questioned whether this has led India away from assessing “real issues” and if such “showmanship” gives preference to style over substance.
Proponents of Modi's approach have argued that the focus on the Prime Minister does not necessarily mean there is no substantive diplomatic work been done behind the scenes, even suggesting that it actually supplements diplomatic efforts in achieving substantive outcomes. Thus, while the spotlight may have somewhat shifted from substance to style, they argue that Modi's personalized approach has not replaced traditional diplomacy and its importance.
So, has this alleged 'showmanship' caused India's focus to move away from the brick and mortar of global engagements? Or have they just been overshadowed by the increased personalization of high-level foreign engagements?
It is thus pertinent to examine whether New Delhi's expansion of its diplomatic network can achieve its foreign policy objectives and whether this expansion is complemented by necessary reforms in its foreign policy bureaucracy. Moreover, is there a clear benefit to increasing one's diplomatic footprint?
The Lowy Institute’s recently released report, 'The Global Diplomacy Index', maps the size and reach of diplomatic posts maintained by countries worldwide. The biggest takeaway from the report is China surpassing the United States with 276 diplomatic posts–including embassies, consulates, and permanent missions to international organizations. Although the slight increase in China’s number has come at the cost of Taiwan, which was enticed to adhere to the “One China’ policy, this indicates a broader trend of a growing Chinese diplomatic footprint.
On the other hand, while assessing India’s diplomatic heft, there seems to be a clear gap between its stated ambitions and its actions in the diplomatic arena. Ranking 12th amongst the 61 countries on the list, it lags behind even countries like Turkey, Brazil, and Italy.
Beijing’s growing ambitions and its path to preeminence receives a significant boost by expanding these outposts. Ensuring a robust diplomatic infrastructure and footprint is key for aspiring countries to facilitate economic partnerships and nurture political ties. It can be argued that an increase in diplomatic outposts is the byproduct of their increasing power, not the cause of it; regardless, they play a crucial role in maintaining power, if not furthering it.
It is evident that the era of 'hide and bide' is over for China. Under Xi Jinping, Beijing has boldly claimed that it will no longer shy away from global leadership. Today, because of its economic heft, it has built and expanded its diplomatic resources not just to safeguard its interests but to shoulder more global responsibilities. Whether you think of China as revisionist or not, there can be no denying the massive diplomatic tasks it has overtaken to further its interests and amplify its message to the world. Its actions have changed global trade supply chains, resulted in multiple trade deals and free trade agreements (FTAs), and strengthened its ability to create alternative global institutional frameworks.
Interestingly, the rate of growth in the expenditure by the foreign ministry of China is double that of what it spends on defense. Since 2011, the amount has been doubled to 60 Rmb ($9 billion) in 2018, witnessing a 15% year on year increase. This infusion of resources magnifies Beijing’s physical reach and its influence in negotiations on the global and multilateral forums as well. Hence, China has allied its military power with diplomacy to exercise power and influence over the decision making of other nations.
Beijing today, leads 4 out of the 15 UN agencies (the US leads only one) and contributes more peacekeepers than the other four permanent UNSC members combined. China seems to be filling the growing vacuum left by the US, which has retreated inwards and begun to reexamine its commitment to some of its obligations towards international organizations. For example, it funds 15% of the UN’s regular budget currently, up 5 % from last year.
This has helped Xi Jinping in shaping China's image, defending its core interests, and attacking China’s adversaries at all levels and forums. China's Belt & Road Initiative (BRI)–an aggregate of bilateral deals of infrastructure projects connected across boundaries–is a byproduct of these diplomatic maneuvers.
Comparatively, India has found itself wanting when it comes to diplomatic posts, missions, and manpower. Although India's ranking in 'The Global Diplomacy Index' has increased by one, as an ascending power, seeking permanent membership in the UNSC, India lags behind several other countries. Despite having a population of 1.3 billion, India has fewer foreign service officers than New Zealand, which has a population of just 5 million.
That being said, Modi's government increased funding to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to Rs 15,000 crores, an increase of 3000 crores. It has also initiated plans to open 18 new diplomatic missions in Africa, where it sees itself playing a vital role in the future. In 2018, out of the stipulated 18, five have been completed, including Djibouti, where China has built its first overseas military base.
However, despite these efforts, there are still massive fiscal deficiencies and structural weaknesses. Allocation of funds to the MEA fell well short of the MEA's demand of Rs 21,000 crores, indicating a lack of understanding of the ministry's requirements. Additionally, since the 2000s, the annual intake of Indian Foreign Services officers was less than eight a year. Despite the increased rate of intake today, which stands around 35-40 currently, the trend of government not filling the sanctioned quota of about 900 plus openings remains unaddressed. The MEA data reveals that there are 2700 Indian diplomatic rank officers in missions or posts abroad. This is compared to China's 4500 Japan's 5700, and the US' 20000.
At a time when the “Indian growth story” has taken a hit and doubts have been cast about India’s abilities to realize and reach its potential, diplomatic robustness will be key. Modi's headlining events will be a futile exercise if India fails to acknowledge the need and benefit of addressing deficiencies in foreign policy bureaucracy.
The appointment of career diplomat Dr. S. Jaishankar as the new foreign minister is undoubtedly a welcome step and shows the government's intentions of having a professional with great acumen in a key position. Being a technocrat, he has an opportunity to use political control at his disposal to bridge the gap between the political class and bureaucracy. But rather than just concentrating on the fresh impetus this different kind of leadership will infuse, such symbolic events must be matched by a structural and financial impetus to bolster the size and reach of India's diplomatic footprint.
Reference List
Bley, Bonnie. 2019 Global Diplomacy Index. The Lowy Institute. Accessed on 18 December 2019, from https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/2019-global-diplomacy-index
Bley, Bonnie. The New Geography of Global Diplomacy. Foreign Affairs. Accessed on 19 December 2019, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2019-11-27/new-geography-global-diplomacy
Clover, Charles. Ju Fei Sherry. China’s diplomacy budget doubles under Xi Jinping. Financial Times. Accessed on 20 December 2019, from https://www.ft.com/content/2c750f94-2123-11e8-a895-1ba1f72c2c11
Elmer, Keegan. China is spending big on diplomacy in Central and South Asia, but is it worth it? South China Morning Post. Accessed on 20 December 2019, from https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3042108/china-spending-big-diplomacy-central-and-south-asia-it-worth
Marlow, Ian. India's diplomat shortage leaves it far behind China. The Economic Times. Accessed on 20 December 2019, from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/indias-diplomat-shortage-leaves-it-far-behind-china/articleshow/65617912.cms?from=mdr
Mishra, Richa. Can Jaishankar rev up the diplomatic corps? The Hindu Business Line. Accessed on 20 December 2019, from https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/specials/people-at-work/can-jaishankar-rev-up-the-diplomatic-corps/article30029085.ece
Patranobis, Sutirtho. China now has the most diplomatic posts in the world, India ranked 12th. Hindustan Times. Accessed on 20 December 2019, from https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/china-now-has-most-diplomatic-posts-in-the-world-india-ranked-12th/story-rtobflHgwEUTmcitMmygQJ.htm
Roy Chaudhary, Deepanjan. Budget 2019: India to open 18 new diplomatic missions across Africa. The Economic Times. Accessed on 19 December 2019, from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/budget-2019-india-to-open-18-new-diplomatic-missions-across-africa/articleshow/70093835.cms
Sharma, Pankaj. Eyeing the Skyline. Millennium Post, Accessed on 20 December 2019, from http://www.millenniumpost.in/opinion/eyeing-the-skyline-387230
Image Source: Swarajya