There is nothing more audacious than appearing to be instigating a demand for an "Indian-New Zealander" to head New Zealand's diplomatic mission in India. The simple reason being that the appointment of a diplomatic representative overseas has rarely been a concern for an average New Zealander, and least for an Indian-New Zealander.
More often than not, an overwhelming number of New Zealand Heads of Mission are professional diplomats, who belong to an elite diplomatic corps, rigorously trained and skilled in the art of negotiation, with equally adept foreign diplomats. Against this backdrop, any suggestion even vaguely appearing as a political demand, for sending an "Indian-New Zealander" as Head of Mission in New Delhi, can be seen in much public distaste. Despite this quandary, I will argue that appointment of an "Indian-New Zealander" as Head of Mission in New Delhi is in order, and is very much in pursuit of our national interest —New Zealand's national interest.
For those who are uninitiated, there is already an emergent trend of Indian origin western diplomat as Head of Mission in New Delhi. Recently, Australia became the third western country after the United States and Canada to send an Indian origin diplomat to represent their respective governments in New Delhi. Given that our foreign offices work in close alignment with our geopolitical allies such as the United States, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, especially outside of developed world, it is not entirely unusual to expect New Zealand to follow the suit and send an Indian-New Zealander as the new High Commissioner to India.
The expert opinion on the subject matter varies on both sides of centre. While some foreign policy experts are cautious, and rightly though, in first, accepting this as an observable trend, and then subsequently in over-emphasising the value of the role of any individual ambassador in shaping relations between any two countries. Associate Professor David Capie, Director of Centre for Strategic Studies, at the Victoria University, notes that "the background of any individual ambassador is a pretty small factor in the relations between any two countries," and also states that "the overwhelming number of New Zealand Heads of Mission are professional diplomats, appointed on the basis of their skills and experience”.
Similarly Dr Mark Rolls, Director IRSS programme at the University of Waikato and Fellow of the New Zealand-India Research Institute, also appears slightly apprehensive in commenting that "it is hard to envisage how an early announcement and subsequent taking up of the post, of this nature can, by itself, push the relationship much further." The message is clear that such appointments are more an internal reflection of the western world rather than signalling any departure in the way they conduct their external affairs, where decades of migration has changed the composition of their societies, including diplomatic corps.
Whereas some other experts stretch it a bit far in commenting on the political nature of any such potential appointment. To paraphrase Dr Ashok Sharma, Fellow at Australia-India Institute, the University of Melbourne, and Deputy Chair of New Zealand Institute of International Affairs, Auckland Branch, "Just being a person of Indian origin would not help. The person needs to be well connected."
Like everywhere else in life, the truth is somewhere between these two lines of thinking, which is a little bit towards the extreme end, rather than at the centre. What is missing in these arguments is an accurate pacing with the changing nature of contemporary international politics. It will be too naive to assume that suddenly all major Anglo-Saxon powers have come to this divine realisation that decades of migration have transformed their societies and it needs to be reflected, almost simultaneously, in their respective choices of diplomatic representatives being sent to India. This is neither a coincidence nor an avoidable symbolism. It is realpolitik, as these powers are seeking to engage with India through a myriad of diplomatic resources available to them, which are helpful in getting across 'crucial messages' to the Indian policymakers, at an opportune time, when India is ready more than ever to engage with the outside world. Do New Zealand's policymakers not have any 'crucial message' that they need to subtly send across Indian political elites? Or is New Zealand inattentive to the fact that today's India is ready more than ever to engage with the outside world? It is high time that New Zealand's policymakers tune to realpolitik in its engagement with India, again.
Undoubtedly, traditionally, India has been a difficult player to do business with, either in foreign policy goals or in trade and economic engagement. But things have changed dramatically since the end of the Cold War when the new liberal economic thinking replaced the previous archaic socialist way of thinking within India. New Zealand was attuned to these changes within India and has responded positively to build upon our common love for cricket and generally amicable people to people relations into a workable political relation between the two countries. In the recent past, Prime Minister John Key has taken the lead in engaging India on talks about the proposed FTA between two countries. Simultaneously, in the last decade, India has emerged as our primary target market for export of education and immigration. Despite these growing convergences, and a widely acknowledged mutually favourable dispensation among the political elites of the two countries, the relationship between India and New Zealand has reached a plateau. The mojo of this relationship has become blurred, if not lost altogether. While New Zealand has struggled to make Indian move fast on the FTA, India, on the other hand, has stumbled upon New Zealand's 'principled' opposition to its much-desired entry into the coveted Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG). There is a need for some political ingenuity to bring back this relationship on track. While India is seeking to host Prime Minister John Key soon (if insiders are to be believed) in order to seek New Zealand's support in their renewed attempt to seek entry into the NSG, what is New Zealand doing on its part?
For me, Prime Minister John Key will do well, by announcing well in advance, an Indian-New Zealander successor to the current incumbent in New Zealand's mission in India. There will be three clear tangible benefits of this political move. First, New Zealand will demonstrate to Indian decision makers that New Zealand is attentive to the fact that today's India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi is keen, more than ever before, to engage with the outside world. As a consequence of this attentiveness, New Zealand, like other global players, also understands that its communication with those who matter in India has to be up to the mark. Indian communication style, like many other societies of the orient, is at best confusing, or say, different from what we are adept to understand in the western world. Employing an Indian-New Zealander resource, at this opportune time when India is ready more than ever before to engage with the world, will ensure that we succeed in driving through some 'crucial messages' across Indian official establishment, subtly, that we may not have succeeded yet in our direct style of communication.
One important message that needs to be driven past through the Indian foreign policy bureaucracy, albeit subtly, is that there is a need for wider recognition for New Zealand's sense of pride in playing an effective role in global affairs. The intent to punch above its weight on the international stage, and desire to pursue an independent foreign policy, is very much in the DNA of New Zealand's political system, and this needs to be acknowledged by one and all. Currently, the level of sensitisation on the Indian side is short of our expectations, which often leaves a residual chilliness in the track II level engagement between two countries. This is one area where an Indian-New Zealander diplomatic resource will do a slightly better job. In fact, if executed deftly, it will be a great service to the New Zealand nation and beneficial to the future trajectory of New Zealand-India bilateral relations.
The third and probably most relevant contribution that an Indian-New Zealander incumbent would be able to do better than anyone else in the present situation is building a bridge between the current position and cherished goals of Prime Minister John Key and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Prime Minister John Key might want to leave a legacy of securing a successful FTA with India, the second fastest emerging economy, like erstwhile Prime Minster Helen Clark, who succeeded in signing an FTA with China. Similarly, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has invested significant emotional capital towards securing India's entry into the NSG. Today, both these leaders appear stranded in a territory where mutual help is the only help available to them. In the world of diplomacy, mutual help is often secured, depending upon how deftly messages are communicated and received. Sometimes, key messages get lost or diluted when travelling across cultural barriers, and therefore, it requires extra efforts in ensuring that messages travel and reach their intended audience accurately.
It will be too naive to assume that decision makers on both sides are not aware of this current state of the art in our bilateral relations. Also, it will be blasphemous to infer that all of the above-described tasks on hand could not be pursued effectively by any other professional diplomat. Let it be absolutely clear that this is not the intention here. What has been argued here is the fact that some situations in international politics, like in domestic politics, are so opportune that it requires timely action. Today's India presents itself as that opportune moment for New Zealand that requires timely action. This point is illustrated by the fact that if there is anyone in India who has enough political capital to make India sign FTA with New Zealand, and simultaneously manage domestic concerns against proposed opening for our agricultural exports, then it is Prime Minister Modi alone. So let us woo him and get the job done.
To explain the whole argument made above in cricketing parlance, a language that both New Zealand and India understands better, employing an Indian-New Zealander as the next High Commissioner to India is a captain's call in the tense last over of a match. A captain may have more than one bowler available to him to bowl, yet sometimes, he is required to take an informed decision based on his discretion and choose one bowler over the other. His choice of decision is not a reflection of ability or talent of those bowlers who have not been chosen to bowl, rather it is best a reflection of the captain's reading of the situation, and the current reading of India-New Zealand bilateral relations suggest that Prime Minister Key may take a captain's call in appointing an Indian-New Zealander as the next High Commissioner to India.
We spoke to Dr Ashok Sharma, Fellow at Australia-India Institute, the University of Melbourne and Deputy Chair of New Zealand Institute of International Affairs, Auckland Branch; Dr Mark Rolls, Director IRSS Programme, Senior Lecturer, and Fellow at the New Zealand-IndiaResearch Institute; and Associate Professor David Capie, Director, Centre for Strategic Studies, Victoria University. Excerpts from the interview below:
Dr Ashok Sharma, Fellow at Australia-India Institute , the University of Melbourne and Deputy Chair of New Zealand Institute of International Affairs, Auckland Branch.
(NZ Citizen , Australian Resident of Indian origin)
There is a new trend of Indian Origin Western diplomats being sent to lead their respective missions in New Delhi. Recently, Australia became the third western country after the United States and Canada to send an Indian origin diplomat to represent their respective states. What do you have to say about this trend? Is this a trend at all or just a trivial coincidence?
I am not surprised. It can’t be said as trivial coincidence. Australia’s present High Commissioner, and one past High Commissioner to India, both are of Indian origin. To me, it’s a policy that might become a trend in countries which has a significant presence of Indian Diaspora. This could also be seen in the context of a number of factors—growing trust resulting from the interaction between people to people at the professional level, business level and at the bureaucratic level , the democratic tradition, rule of law, commonwealth legacy. This trend is visible only in Anglosphere countries, where there is a significant India origin population. These countries are ready to trust India’s democratic and bureaucratic tradition.
Do you see this trend as a new look of the western diplomacy on the Asian stage? Or do you see it more as an India specific phenomenon?
Certainly, this helps in a better diplomatic engagement. Looking at India’s rising economic prominence many Western nations are looking at India as a big market for their services and products. Also, there is strategic convergence on larger strategic matters in the Indo-Pacific region and India’s deepening security ties with the US, engaging India is becoming both on the economic and strategic front.
A better understanding of how Indian system works is important. Though India is modernising and ready to embrace the international economic system, it is still a traditional society and comes with a lot of complexities, which need a better understanding of its society, bureaucracy and commercial set-up which would help to frame a better policy to engage India. The question of India specific needs to be seen in the larger context—India is expanding, its people are coming out and interacting globally, its Diaspora is expanding, India’s young, English speaking and skilled demography of assimilative attributes are going to be future workforce for many western countries which have low birth rate and ageing society
Although a state's decision of appointing it's respective Heads of Missions to other states, can emanate from numerous calculations including professional merit of the appointee, yet, more often than not, there are political reasons that overweigh other factors. Would you agree with this statement?
Yes.
Given this trend, do you think that it is only natural to expect that New Zealand will soon follow the lead and appoint an Indian Origin High Commissioner to India?
It’s possible.
The current state of bilateral relations between the New Zealand and India is at a stage of impasse where both countries despite enjoying a very cordial people to people relations and an equally favourable dispensation among their respective political elites are finding it difficult to move their mountains. Critics argue that this is owing to bureaucratic inertia within both states. In this regard do you think that an early announcement of an Indian Origin High Commissioner to New Delhi can yield favourable results for both the nations?
Provided, the person appointed is able to engage with the current Indian government and well connected. Many India-origin people have their own political leanings, NZ government must be careful in appointing a person of Indian origin. Just being a person of Indian origin would not help.
Associate Professor David Capie, Director, Centre for Strategic Studies, Victoria University
There is a new trend of Indian Origin Western diplomats being sent to lead their respective missions in New Delhi. Recently, Australia became the third western country after the United States and Canada to send an Indian origin diplomat to represent their respective states. What do you have to say about this trend? Is this a trend at all or just a trivial coincidence?
I’m not sure I’d say three appointments constitutes a trend, but I’m sure it’s not a coincidence either.
Do you see this trend as a new look of the western diplomacy on the Asian stage? Or do you see it more as an India specific phenomenon?
It’s not entirely new and it’s not something that’s only happening with respect to India. The former US Ambassador to China (2011-14), Gary Locke, is a Chinese-American, and his appointment initially attracted hugely favourable comment in China. I think it really says something about how decades of migration has changed the look of ‘western’ countries – including their diplomats.
Although a state's decision of appointing it's respective Heads of Missions to other states, can emanate from numerous calculations including professional merit of the appointee, yet, more often than not, there are political reasons that overweigh other factors. Would you agree with this statement?
The overwhelming number of New Zealand Heads of Mission are professional diplomats, appointed on the basis of their skills and experience. There are a few posts, such as London and Washington, and some places in the Pacific, that have seen political appointments, but these are a distinct minority, and usually the appointments are more about rewarding a former politician for their public service than singling someone out because of their personal background or ethnicity.
Given this trend, do you think that it is only natural to expect that New Zealand will soon follow the lead and appoint an Indian Origin High Commissioner to India?
It’s possible, but I’m not sure it’s going to be the most important factor in choosing our representative.
The current state of bilateral relations between the New Zealand and India is at a stage of impasse where both countries despite enjoying a very cordial people to people relations and an equally favourable dispensation among their respective political elites are finding it difficult to move their mountains. Critics argue that this is owing to bureaucratic inertia within both states. In this regard do you think that an early announcement of an Indian Origin High Commissioner to New Delhi can yield favourable results for both the nations?
It would be nice to think it was that simple, but the background of any individual ambassador is a pretty small factor in the relations between any two countries. I think the New Zealand government is interested in a much closer political, economic and security relationship with India, but right now that feeling is not reciprocated in New Delhi. That’s mostly because we’re a small, fairly distant country that exports agricultural products, which India wants to keep out, and the fact India has a long line of other suitors.
Dr Mark Rolls, Director IRSS Programme, Senior Lecturer, and Fellow at the New Zealand-India Research Institute
There is a new trend of Indian Origin Western diplomats being sent to lead their respective missions in New Delhi. Recently, Australia became the third western country after the United States and Canada to send an Indian origin diplomat to represent their respective states. What do you have to say about this trend? Is this a trend at all or just a trivial coincidence?
At this stage, I think it is more coincidence (though not trivial) than a trend. After all, the appointment of Harinder Sidhu as the new Australian High Commissioner comes more than twelve months after the Canadian High Commissioner and US Ambassador presented their credentials: coincidentally, on the same day. Although there are more Indian-origin diplomats working in foreign missions in New Delhi nowadays, these three are still the only Heads of Mission.
Do you see this trend as a new look of the western diplomacy on the Asian stage? Or do you see it more as an India specific phenomenon?
Since I do not, yet, regard it as a trend this is a difficult question to answer in one sense. To date, of four Western states (Australia, Canada, the UK and the US), only the US has so far appointed someone of Chinese origin to be the ambassador to Beijing for instance. New Zealand hasn't appointed anyone of Chinese origin to be the ambassador there yet either. It would, therefore, seem to be an India-specific phenomenon. Australia effectively broke the mould when it appointed its first Indian origin diplomat as Deputy High Commissioner to India—Rakesh Ahuja—back in the 1990s.
Although a state's decision of appointing it's respective Heads of Missions to other states, can emanate from numerous calculations including professional merit of the appointee, yet, more often than not, there are political reasons that overweigh other factors. Would you agree with this statement?
Whilst political reasons can explain the appointment of US ambassadors in many cases, I don't think this is true for countries such as New Zealand by and large. If one looks at the backgrounds of the three Indian origin Heads of Mission discussed above, then they are all very experienced and have held a range of both high-level government and diplomatic posts. That such high achievers are being appointed to New Delhi suggests how important India has become.
Given this trend, do you think that it is only natural to expect that New Zealand will soon follow the lead and appoint an Indian Origin High Commissioner to India?
Again, I do not yet see it as a trend. It is certainly possible, however, that at some stage New Zealand will appoint someone of Indian origin as High Commissioner to India though this may not be sooner rather than later.
The current state of bilateral relations between the New Zealand and India is at a stage of impasse where both countries despite enjoying a very cordial people to people relations and an equally favourable dispensation among their respective political elites are finding it difficult to move their mountains. Critics argue that this is owing to bureaucratic inertia within both states. In this regard do you think that an early announcement of an Indian Origin High Commissioner to New Delhi can yield favourable results for both the nations?
There are indeed a number of obstacles preventing the bilateral relationship from progressing as far as Wellington would like, especially with regard to the Free Trade Agreement, It is hard to envisage how an early announcement and subsequent taking up of the post, of this nature, can, by itself, push the relationship much further. The current and recent past holders of the post of High Commissioner have invariably been dynamic, experienced diplomats. It is much more likely that a breakthrough would be made as the result of a high-level visit.
ISSUE
Leave a Comment