Diplomatic practice, old and new
The object of diplomacy is to maximize national interest. To do so diplomacy requires flexibility but also an adherence to principles. The demands of the two are often contradictory but at a basic level require a reconciliation lest an accusation of hypocrisy becomes tenable. That charge, at least from the standpoint of old diplomatic practice, was always sought to be avoided. But now times are changing and many states shrug off assertions of hypocritical policy stands or actions. They assert that powerful and mighty states consistently break principles; hence, old diplomatic values do not need to be followed.
Besides, they also believe that in the age of social media and the constant 24-hour news cycle the public is so bombarded with information that it cannot focus on contradictions between an earlier statement and the next. And, that the new statement invariably overtakes the old even if it was made only a few or even a couple of days earlier.
I have recalled the difference between old and new diplomatic practice because of the differences contained in the BRICS summit Kazan Declaration and Indo-German statement on the situation in West Asia. India was a party to both these statements. In the past countries emphasized that their authentic view on an international crisis was in their individual domestic statements either issued generally by their Foreign Ministries or made in their national statement to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). They also stressed that for the purposes of achieving consensus in multilateral forums they often went along with the sentiments of the majority or the effected parties even if this meant that some portions of their views were not articulated in that multilateral forum statement. This is true though if a vital interest was involved a country did not make concessions even if this meant earning the ill will of other members of the multilateral group.
I was reminded of these diplomatic practices as I saw how India had dealt with the West Asia situation in its national statement to the UNGA on September 8, the BRICS summit statement in Kazan on October 23 and two days later on October 25 in the India-Germany Joint Statement issued on the conclusion of the talks between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz during the latter’s visit to India.
India’s position on the Israel-Palestinian conflict is based on a two-state solution for which the parties must engage in negotiations. It has been stated by India, on numerous occasions, that violence will not resolve the issue. In its national statement to the UNGA on September India did not reiterate these propositions but took a larger view on the need to adhere to international law, especially by the powerful states. It also emphasized the ill effects of the conflict on weaker states.
BRICS now has Egypt, UAE and Iran as members. These countries obviously did not allow the Kazan Declaration to refer to the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023 but focused on the Israeli response which they severely condemned. The only language which India, and perhaps others too, were able to put in was “We mourn the tragic loss of civilian lives in the recent period and express sympathy with all civilian victims and their families. We call for urgent measures, in accordance with international law, to ensure the protection of lives”. And, subsequently a call for the return of all hostages.
Except for that the Declaration only condemned Israel. Consider this: “We reiterate our grave concern at the deterioration of the situation and humanitarian crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in particular the unprecedented escalation of violence in the Gaza Strip and in West Bank as a result of the Israeli military offensive, which led to mass killing and injury of civilians, forced displacement and widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure. We stress the urgent need for an immediate, comprehensive and permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip……We denounce the Israeli attacks against humanitarian operations, facilities, personnel and distribution points”. The diatribe against Israel just goes on and on with India signing on to all this.
The India-German Joint Statement is substantially contrary to the Kazan Declaration on the conflict. It states “The leaders expressed their shared interest in achieving peace and stability in the Middle East. They unequivocally condemned the Hamas’ terror attacks on October 7, 2023 and expressed concern over the large-scale loss of civilian lives and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. They called for the immediate release of all hostages taken by Hamas and an immediate ceasefire as well as the urgent improvement of access and sustained distribution of humanitarian assistance at scale throughout Gaza. The leaders underscored the need to prevent the conflict from escalating and spilling over in the region. In this regard, they called on all regional players to act responsibly and with restraint…”.
It can be argued that the common feature in both statements is the need for negotiations. This is correct but the overall direction of both are diametrically different. Thus, is India running with the hare and hunting with the hound on this issue? Or is this the way states navigate diplomatic minefields? As a former professional diplomat I would argue that it is the latter. For, diplomacy like politics is the art of the possible!
