Diplomacy
India’s Ministry of External Affairs is one of the best in South Asia

In his exclusive interview for PICREADI Alexey Kupriyanov, Russian expert on India, reveals some secrets of Indian soft power and states that India’s External Affairs is one of the best in South Asia. But why?
Is India the subject
or the object of soft power? How does India see its soft power approach in the
world and does it see it at all?
India as any other country is at the same time both the object and the subject.
With great importance attached to India by the great powers trying to ensure
for themselves India’s support, the country is the object. It is well proved by
the US soft power programs targeted at India. Numerous meetings, promotion of
dialogue with experts and Indian youth, and business trips invitations are used
by the US.
At the same time India is the soft power subject. That is why we should
apprehend its political worldview. Their world consists of three concentric
zones: the immediate neighborhood, extended neighborhood zones and the rest of
the world. The immediate neighborhood zone includes the Indian subcontinent and
all the neighboring islands, the extended neighborhood zone includes Eastern
Africa, Central Asia, the coastal areas of the Arabian sea, Middle East and
South East Asia. That is the zone that is influenced upon by India’s soft
power. India is not able to use the hard power there due to the lack of
resources, as well as necessity and will. So, the soft power develops.
Undoubtedly its influence spreads upon the rest of the world: it is enough to
recall Indian films, Yoga days and the demonstration of its beautiful, old
culture which dates back to 3000 B.C. Anyway, in the immediate neighborhood and
extended neighborhood zones the Indian soft power programmes are much more
extensive and detailed. The Indians organize military and police trainings,
young politicians courses and etc., as a result a number of pro-Indian experts,
officials and politicians emerge.
How is the
system of public diplomacy structured in India? Does the government play
significant role in this structure?
India’s system of public diplomacy works intensively through Indian Embassies,
to which cultural, press and educational attaches are attached. Indian embassy
maintains closest contacts with Indian, pro-Indian and India-linked circles, or
at least tries to establish contacts with them. India will use everything that
can be used to achieve the goals of public diplomacy. ISKCON represents a good
example of this trend. In India itself they are regarded not so well, but
abroad they represent Indian culture and so they are treated differently,
because if you have something to do with ISKCON you will be pro India a priori.
The Raisina Dialogue, which has been held for some years, is a key expert
event in the field of international relations and diplomacy. What is the aim of
this events? To improve the image of the country? Or to organize international
cooperation?
In fact, it is not the only one such event in India, there is a lot of various
events. Raisina Dialogue is the most well-known one. Schools of young politicians are held in India
on the regular basis. This instrument is now intensively used by both the West
ant the East. Generally, big forums and conferences invite foreign experts to
establish relations with their Indian counterparts. Young politicians schools
last for one month or month and a half, there are lectures and the participants
communicate with each other.
I know those who participated in these programs, and they got quite impressed,
because it was the first time they visited the country and lived in it. This
people leave the country with absolutely different feelings, because they
already know the country, they love it and leave the country being an advocate
of the Russian-Indian friendship, for instance.
So, the government of India is
willing to develop the country’s positions in terms of soft power?
That’s true, Indian Foreign Ministry rigorously follows this sphere and
successfully implements all the necessary programs. Indian Foreign Ministry is
truly one of the best in South Asia.
In spite of the fact
that the idea of non-violence is a traditional leitmotif of Indian policy, the
most privileged strategic partnership with Russia develops not in the soft
power, but in military-technical cooperation. What are the prospects of
diversification of Russian-Indian partnership?
In fact, it is already quite diversified. Our cultural and scientific center (Russian
Center for Science and Culture in New Delhi – “CD”) proactively works on strengthening of our culture
ties and has already achieved considerable success. The ground is fertile
there. Cultural links between Russia and India date back to the late 19th
century, we should remember that Tolstoy’s ideas shaped Gandhi’s worldview.
There are a lot of Soviet textbooks, printed in the Soviet Union in Indian
languages, which were used by several generations. Russia’s image in India is
still very positive, mostly thanks to this background.
Does it
influence the youth as well?
Sure, it influences the youth less. First, our work in this aspect is not
enough, second, back then we were a superpower and now we are not. It is clear
that the youth incline towards the US, but with great influence of their
families and social attitudes, the country has positive perception of Russia.
A lot of Indians visit Russian Center for Science and Culture in New Delhi
leaded by Fiodor Rozovsky to learn the language, Russian culture and national
dances. One of the central streets in New Delhi is called Tolstoy Marg, there
are monuments to Tolstoy, Pushkin, in Nehru park there is a monument to Lenin,
with floral breathes. For sure India is interested in Russia as well as Russia
is interested in India. Cultural ties are okay, but economic ones are much more
fragile.
China is far richer, but India holds all the nonfinancial actives and is able
to carry out religious projects in South East Asia.
Russian-Indian
partnership is developing against escalating Indian-Chinese confrontation on a
great number of strategic issues (differences on the “One belt one
road” initiative, etc.). There is a confrontation in cultural areas as
well. May India take advantages of the drawbacks of Chinese model? In which
countries it might do it?
Firstly, we should clarify the terms. India isn’t Chinese adversary, foe, it is
Chinese rival in some infrastructural and political influence projects in South
East Asia and border areas. India doesn’t strongly oppose the Belt and Road
project. It is against China using disputed territories, as the China –
Pakistan Economic Corridor goes through the lands over which India claims its
sovereignty. China didn’t asked permission of India to do so. It represents an
acute political issue, but there is no existential confrontation. If this issue
is resolved, the problem will cease to exist.
Generally speaking, culturally India and China have been closely linked for a
long period of time. It is enough to recall the evolution that underwent the
image of bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara after it had negotiated the Himalayas, had
feminised and had turned into the Godness of the hearth Guanyin.
Their economic ties are of the same importance. China is a major exporter of
goods in India and one of the major investors into Indian economy. Despite all
the differences, the countries continue to trade and the turnover is rapidly
rising. So, we should discuss China-India rapprochement, as the Doklam
confrontation was set aside in the context of prime minister’s Modi visit to
Wuhan and rising cooperation.
Indian – Chinese confrontation in the soft power sphere can hardly be
discussed, as the countries offer fundamentally different product. There are
countries oriented towards China, there are countries oriented towards India,
some countries manage to successfully combine these directions. China is far
richer, but India possess all the non-financial actives and may carry out
religious diplomacy projects in South East Asia. Small countries try to get on
with both countries, for example in some infrastructural project they rent a
port for reconstruction to China and the nearby airport to India.
One of the largest elements of soft power is the higher education. What
about Indian soft power implementation through education?
It is all right. India invites foreign students, and there is nothing difficult
in going to India to study, as they have a lot of educational programmes.
Jawaharlal Nehru University, the University of Delhi and all the major
universities exercise programs for foreign students. They are backed by the
government.
There is an opinion that India could
promote its own model (including the global governance model), which is
different from the liberal Western one and the Chinese authoritarian one,
through education. Is that true?
To do so, India should first make up such model. I would argue that the Chinese
model is an authoritarian model. On the contrary, China undertakes attempts to
create “a community of shared future for mankind” and accuses Western
countries of authoritarianism and neocolonialism. Nowadays China is proactively
inviting students from the Third World countries to train them as pro-Chinese,
but on the other hand China isn’t interested in these students building
specific African socialism under the auspices of a local Communist Party. It is
mainly aimed at developing communication with Chinese people and promoting
cooperation of China and their country of origin. India is doing something
similar, it trains pro-Indian personnel, which transmits Indian influence and
advocates friendly relations with India.
In case of India, Indian diaspora’s potential is of particular interest (It
is one of the largest in the world). External policy of Indian prime minister
Modi features direct appeal to Indian diaspora overseas. How does the diaspora
influence Indian image abroad?
Firstly, as the Indian diaspora is so numerous, the appeal to it is a permanent
feature of Indian policy. It has been shaping since Indians were settling down
in the Indian ocean region, exercising their soft and not-so-soft power in South
East Asia, establishing Indian and Buddhist kingdoms, settling down in Eastern
Africa before the European reached the region. Under the British Empire it
scaled up with British hiring Indians and sending them to the most remote
corners of the vast empire. This is how Indian colonies were established in
Barbados, Fiji, developed in Eastern Africa and in the Gulf countries.
The diaspora’s potential is quite a difficult question. Diaspora is one of the
major sources of money, particularly the diasporas in rich countries, such as
the Gulf countries. Indians go there to earn money, but they have no civil
rights there and barely integrate into local communities: Indians can’t be
granted citizenship in Saudi Arabia and so they live in the country as workers.
They send money to India.
In the US Indians integrate into society and step-by-step become more Americans
than Indians. There was a wide spread opinion that Indian diaspora is
exceptionally large and powerful in the US. Indeed, it is huge and some of the
representatives of the diaspora occupy quite high positions in the Senate and
the Congress. But the US Indians are americanised.
The result of this phenomenon is evident in the outcome of the attempts to
exempt India from US sanctions, which would have been introduced, if India had
bought the S-400 missile system. And all of a sudden Indian diaspora proved to
be totally useless in solving the issue. A great number of articles by
distinguished americanised Indians calling to stop putting pressure on India
were published in Indian and US top media resources, in The Diplomat, NYT and
others, but it produced no results. It became clear that Indian diaspora on
which so many hopes were placed turned out to be useless in solving conflicts
of interest.
Indians that are engaged in public affairs in the United States put the US
interests over Indian and consider the US-India rapprochement through the lens
of US interests. So, India managed to suspend the sanctions without diaspora’s
help, but thanks to the highly important geopolitical interest of containing
China secured by Pentagon and the Department of State, which needed India to be
friendly neutral. This impotence of the diaspora should be reflected on.
In other countries the character of diaspora’s influence is much more specific.
The inability of diaspora to get along with the local population of Fiji
constitutes continuous problem for Indian government. Indians living in the
Middle Eastern countries become a financial source for the country, but once a
war starts India evacuates its citizens spending a great deal of money, as it
happened in Yemen.
What is more Indians left some colonial heritage, which is particularly evident
in Eastern Africa. When the British colonised Eastern Africa, Indians were much
more loyal to the British and so they became merchants, policemen, minor
officials, that is why when the liberation movements started, they were
sometimes treated even worse than the British. For instance, Indian diaspora
failed to survive in Zimbabwe; in the South African Republic, vice versa, the
diaspora is thriving and is engaged in political affairs. Somewhere the
diaspora is economically powerful, but totally passive from the political point
of view, somewhere it is all around.
In Russia Indian
diaspora is not so large. Could it be used as a soft power instrument in
Russia?
There are Indians who settled in the Soviet Union, who studied here, got
married, born children, and got russiafied. They have a significant role in the
Russia-India rapprochement. These are businessmen, journalists.
There are several reasons why the diaspora in Russia is not so large. Firstly,
language barrier, secondly, the climate. Indians suffer from the lack of sunny
days in winter more than from cold. Finally, we have a state dominated by a
major nation unlike in the US, for example. In the Los Angeles you’ll see an
American nation shaping in real time by Afro-Americans, Koreans, Chinese, Latin
Americans and other peoples, so Indians will have this sense of belonging. In
Russia the vast majority speaks Russian, there is a tiny minority of migrants
from the non-CIS countries. There is an Indian diaspora in Russia and it is
living quite good, but politically it has no influence. Their main role is to
establish relations. It helps others, maintains relations with the motherland.
In terms of soft
power, private media in India is of particular interest. One of the recent
examples is the so called “modimania”. From your point of view, why
this phenomenon has emerged?
First of all Modi is well received by the diaspora. When he visits a country,
he is cheered as national leader, under whose governance the country is
transforming into a great power.
Modi as a politician is quite interesting personality. He is as powerful, as
those who made new Indian history: Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi. Under the
last prime minister Manmohan Singh, characterized by Indians as a weak leader,
some issues were talked down, he wasn’t able to act strongly. He should take
into account interests of numerous small groups, particular personalities. That
resulted in stalemate. He was quite predictable, the country has been
developing economically, but he wasn’t able to undertake sharp policies.
Modi is so different from him. He is perceived as “a miracle worker”:
he launched the “India cleaning programme” (creating a system of
public lavatories and street cleaning) in 2004, which his precedents weren’t
able to realize. Taking into account the scale of the problem, it seemed to be
impossible, but in 5 years he managed to put it in practice. Nowadays India
differentiates from the India of the past. Modi promises to provide everyone
with gas, water, and electricity before his term ends. Modi is criticized, but
his achievements should be acknowledged.
Modi’s charisma is evident in his speeches. He feels the audience quite well,
which is so rare. He is able to seize the interests of the audience, its
attention and speaks about the issues it is interested in, changing the line of
the speech as soon as he needs it. Other public politicians aren’t able to do
so. Modi is not only a public politician; he is also the head of the state.
What is more, he is the same as the majority of Indians: he is a Hindu, and he
doesn’t show off his secularism. In Russia we usually make jokes of the
elements of national identity, but for Indians Modi embodies Indian national
identity. In spite of a great number of different groups in Indian population,
the majority of Indians are rural Hindu, who speak Hindi and other similar
languages. They respect Hinduism, respect the elderly and cherish traditions.
Modi perfectly matches the image of Indian leader. On the one hand he is quite
experienced, on the other, he is energetic, ascetic in everyday life, single as
he wants to devote his life to the country. He creates for himself an image of
an ideal Golden Age leader and at the same time a 21st century leader who
respects traditions and uses an iPhone.
Where does the most well-known element of Indian mass culture – the cinema
stand? There are any prospects for it in Russia?
The elderly grew up with Roger Kapur’s films. They were extremely popular.
Surprisingly enough it may sound but our young population watch Indian films
and TV series (“Baahubali”, for example). In comparison with
Hollywood films, the Bollywood ones are still quite popular. What’s more there
is not only Bollywood films, but also films of other Indian productions.
Nevertheless, these films are much more popular in the immediate neighborhood
and extended neighborhood zones: in Afghanistan, in the Middle East and in
South East Asia. A great deal of Bollywood films is made in Hindustani. It is a
kind of lingua franca for Hindi and Urdu speakers, it uses basic vocabulary,
which is familiar to both Pakistani, and Indians. Afghani and Arabs use these
films to master the language, as they usually watch these films and TV series.
Where does the most well-known element of Indian mass culture – the cinema
stand? There are any prospects for it in Russia?
The elderly grew up with Roger Kapur’s films. They were extremely popular.
Surprisingly enough it may sound but our young population watch Indian films
and TV series (“Baahubali”, for example). In comparison with
Hollywood films, the Bollywood ones are still quite popular. What’s more there
is not only Bollywood films, but also films of other Indian productions.
Nevertheless, these films are much more popular in the immediate neighborhood
and extended neighborhood zones: in Afghanistan, in the Middle East and in
South East Asia. A great deal of Bollywood films is made in Hindustani. It is a
kind of lingua franca for Hindi and Urdu speakers, it uses basic vocabulary,
which is familiar to both Pakistani, and Indians. Afghani and Arabs use these
films to master the language, as they usually watch these films and TV series.
How does India manage
to combine so acute social problems (poverty, terrorism, etc.) and development
of cutting-edge and military technologies? How a country can be so attractive
abroad with such domestic problems?
Frankly, it fails to combine it. No one is happy with the poverty. On the other
hand, a sound economic reform is underway, the middle class is expanding,
poverty, dirt on the streets, lack of electricity and astonishing customs are
disappearing.
India reminds me of the China of 1980s, the country is still poor, but its
economy is ready to skyrocket. The population is becoming richer and the old
problems are being gradually resolved. There is a sparkling difference when you
see Gurugram, Hyderabad and Bengaluru business centers in the midst of suburbs
or jungles where illiterate peasants live. This difference will vanish. The
Indians take it for granted as they can’t do anything about it. They try to
conceal its domestic problems to preserve its image abroad, as any other
country does, I believe. India is a developing, densely populated country, that
avoids rapid decisions.
In conclusion, I would like to mention Indian religious soft power, in particular Modi’s religious diplomacy which is one of a kind. In different times India developed the idea of hindusphere, a Great India. Earlier, in Chola times Indians transferred Hinduism and Buddhism through the whole region, conducting a cultural expansion in the direction of South East Asia.
Under the British Empire another phenomenon came to existence. This is a so called “Indian subempire”, when the vice-king ruled the country and tried to expand its influence. So, Eastern Africa and the Middle East become influenced and controlled by India. After the First world war India seriously considered the plans to annex Iraq and former German part of Eastern Africa, which is Tanzania nowadays. India’s current approaches to the Asian West and the Asian East result from these two epochs of Indian history.
In terms of soft power India took advantages of these two epochs. It is far more active on the East, Modi reminds the country about the Golden Age, periods before the Muslim conquest, and in those times, India was much more active on the East. Today’s idea of the Indian-Pacific region perfectly matches this notion, as it says that India should develop its ties with countries, with which it had ties before the Muslims and the British. These are the Malay Archipelago and the whole South East Asia. But as India also proclaims itself to be the major force in the Indian ocean, it should balance its activities and pay attention to the West. Ties with the countries to the West should be also maintained, India should carry out projects in Africa, buy oil from the Gulf countries. So volens nolens it should cooperate with the countries to the West.
From our partner PICREADI
Diplomacy
Water Diplomacy – A Tool for Peace and Well Being

Authors: Kiran Bhatt, Prof Dr Sanjay Pattanshetty, Prof Dr Helmut Brand
On March 22nd every year, World Water Day is celebrated. The theme for 2023 focused on accelerating changes to resolve the water and sanitation crisis as part of the Agenda 2030. Starting in 2015, Sustainable Development Goal 6 aims to achieve everyone’s access to water and sanitation by 2030, while Goals 14 and 15 focus on conserving water to ensure sustaining marine and freshwater ecosystems. In 2018, the United Nations General Assembly initiated the “International Decade for Action: Water for Sustainable Development – 2018-2028” to promote the management of water resources in an integrated manner. Further, UN Secretary-General António Guterres, as part of its Action Plan, stated that the demand for freshwater is estimated to grow more than 40 per cent by 2050. He added that the increased demand and the adverse impact of climate change would make water scarcity worrisome. Scholars and reports have highlighted that tackling the increasing stress on natural resources such as freshwater while battling climate change would be a primary challenge in the coming years. Thus, with the challenge evolving to affect worldwide, there is a spike in demand for international and regional cooperation despite trends of disregarding globally accepted agreements and geopolitical tensions.
Water as a Source of Conflict?
With the increasing water demand, managing transboundary water basins has become challenging for countries. Although wars or conflicts are not directly instigated by tension over water sharing, using water resources to intimidate the belligerents can potentially drive conflicts, both at the internal and international levels. In addition to the impact on security, scarcity and accessibility to water resources threaten individuals’ socio-economic conditions, including food insecurity. Therefore, water impacts regional and international relations through its ability to control tensions and conflicts. As per the United Nations, a territory is termed “water-stressed” if it withdraws 25 or more per cent of renewable freshwater. Statista, an online consumer and market data platform, recently published a report highlighting the regions facing the highest water stress by 2040. Going by the definition given by the UN, the regions of Central and Southern Asia experience high levels of water stress. At the same time, it is critical in the case of Northern Africa and West Asia.
SDG 6 targets equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water. However, in many developing countries, contaminated water and poor sanitation facilities have resulted in the transmission of water-borne diseases like cholera, diarrhoea, and typhoid. Further, the absence of sanitation also enhances the breeding of vectors, which exposes threats of individuals to vector-borne diseases. Another impact of water scarcity and sanitation is its critical role in food security – from food production to ensuring adequate nutrition, which is possible through safe drinking water and improved hygiene practices. Water insecurity also has a far-stretching impact on the well-being of individuals. One of the aspects is social impact, where women are seen to encounter repercussions since they bear the responsibility of water acquisition for household tasks. Studies have further established that gender-based violence is closely related to the factors such as access, adequacy and reliability of water insecurity. Most research linked violence against women to gendered norms that justified aggression, made water and related household activities the primary responsibility of women, and limited women’s capacity to seek help.
Figure 1: Sustainable Development Goals Related to Water

Source: Authors’ own
Conflict and Crisis due to Scarcity – A Case of Sub-Saharan Africa
Fast-growing urban centres with a booming population dot the African continent on one side while it suffers from increased stress on the already overburdened water systems on the other. Multiple conflicts in the region trace their origin to increased competition for accessing depleting natural resources, among which water is placed high. The issues have risen at all levels of society; for example, the states of Sudan and Egypt have continuing disputes over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam with Ethiopia. While in 2021, a dispute between fishermen and herders in Cameroon turned violent, claiming the lives of 22 people while displacing close to 100,000 due to the continued clashes. The dispute was rooted in disagreements over the rights to water from Lake Chad. While water shortage triggers violent clashes, it also leads to food insecurity in the region due to the adverse impacts on agricultural output and wildlife. The impact of water scarcity has taken a severe turn on agriculture, thereby affecting agrarian economies. For example, South Africa, a relatively stable economy in the continent, depends on the agricultural sector for job creation, food supply and development through foreign exchange. However, the water shortage has negatively impacted commercial and subsistence farmers, affecting the latter more severely.
The nexus between climate change and conflict is a complex issue with context-specific factors playing an important role. However, water scarcity has proven to be a threat multiplier affecting lives and impelling migration. While the scarcity of water alone might not be able to explain tensions between conflicting parties, it can be used as a tool to enhance cooperation due to the mere necessity of water for survival.
Water – A tool for peace?
Water can trigger clashes between neighbours, especially in transboundary water basins, and lead to political tensions between upper and lower riparian states. Various factors, such as geography, influence these transboundary water interactions within a basin. For example, while considering the geographical setting of the course of a river, the states upstream are considered more advantageous merely because they can control the flow and volume of water. Actions such as building dams or diverting water to meet their demands are claimed to showcase power to other members. However, an upper riparian state is not always necessary to be the dominant player. This is evident in the case of the Nile basin, where Egypt has a more significant say.
It is in this context that one must view the importance of negotiations surrounding water sharing. Water negotiations provide an opportunity for the riparian states to discuss, debate and deliberate agreements on various critical factors, such as sharing technical information to agreeing upon commitments related to sustainable management of water resources. A further step in the process is water diplomacy, wherein water could be used to build diplomatic relations between states and international relations in general. While water may itself be a cause of conflicts, situations include groups competing for scarce resources. Disagreement may arise over water used for unilateral or mutually beneficial gains. Hence, the failure to address such disagreements could turn into potential conflicts. It is in these scenarios that water diplomacy becomes a tool for preventive tool. Such a diplomatic tool ensures regional cooperation by bringing stability and peace.
A good example of problems arising from water sharing can be analysed in the case of India. India and Bangladesh are known to share cordial relations, but water sharing has been an issue between the South Asian neighbours. The Ganges Water Treaty was signed in 1996, and the recent developments in signing an MoU regarding sharing water from the Kushiyara are some of the successes of water negotiations. However, an exception is the Teesta water sharing which has yet to be implemented due to remonstrance from West Bengal. On the other hand, a commonly sighted example of successful water diplomacy is the Indus Water Treaty, signed between India and Pakistan in 1960. The Treaty, which the World Bank mediated, aimed to ensure equitable access to water in the Indus River basin. Despite numerous flashpoints, the pact is viewed as a milestone not just in the political relations between the two countries but a model to negotiate, collaborate and address other outstanding concerns. The conflicts that had erupted in the Darfur region of Sudan also find water scarcity as one of the root causes of the dispute between the farmers and pastoralists communities. The international community has employed water to address the conflict that killed several and displaced thousands. Led by the African Union-United Nations Mission in Darfur (UNAMID), a project was initiated for sustainable recovery of peace in the Darfur region by enabling efficient water management, which helps build peace.
As a bottom line, water diplomacy ultimately works towards preventing and mitigating issues arising due to disputes and disagreements related to water sharing. But its success depends on the parties’ willingness to cooperate. This willingness depends on the interests and motivations of the riparian states. A question arises if a powerful riparian might stall the entire process or the need for such engagements for a comparatively weaker riparian state even if there is no improvement in the prevailing imbalances. One angle to explain such unlikely cooperation is maintaining diplomatic relations and securing unexpected future circumstances that are dubious. The cooperation, if successful, could be extended beyond water management to include economic and security matters, ultimately bringing stability and peace to the region. While the success of such diplomacy centred around water depends on political will, linking the financial aspect to ensure further its implementation is also necessary. Political will is needed to establish relationships and networks for mobilising essential actors. It is also a requisite to bring all the crucial actors around a single table during disputes or crises. India’s G20 presidency, along with Lifestyle for the Environment (LiFE), has provided an opportunity to share its successful programs related to water conservation, such as Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM), Namami Gange Programme Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation and Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana. By explaining and sharing the sustainability of such programmes, India can lead the way for other countries in designing action plans which ultimately help achieve the SDG targets. This would also help address the over-stressing water resources in South Asia. On the other hand, there is also a need to involve other players like the Finance Ministry within the government, regional organisations, Multilateral Development Banks and International Financial Institutions, which ensures financial support. In addition, they also provide a third perspective and act as a binding force for the entire process. Water diplomacy can be used as a practical approach that will ensure a link between sustainability and security.
*Sanjay Pattanshetty is Professor and Head of the Department of Global Health Governance and Coordinator of Centre for Health Diplomacy at Prasanna School of Public Health, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India. He completed Doctor of Medicine in Community Medicine (MD) from Manipal Academy of Higher Education, and Double master’s in public policy and human Development with a specialization in Foreign Policy and Development from United Nations University and Maastricht University, The Netherlands. He has over a decade of experience in Public Health policy education program development, implementation, field research and practice. He has several scientific projects, and publications in reputed journals and has contributed to policy briefs in relevant areas.
*Helmut Brand is Jean Monnet, Professor of European Public Health and head of the Department of International Health at Maastricht University, The Netherlands. He studied Medicine in Düsseldorf and Zürich and holds a Master’s in Community Medicine from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the London School of Economics. Prof. Brand is a specialist in Public Health Medicine. He holds an honorable doctorate from Sofia Medical University. After working in several Health Authorities and Ministries of Health, he was director of the Public Health Institute of North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany. Since then European Integration in Health is the main topic of his work. He is past president of the Association of Schools of Public Health in the European Region (ASPHER) and the European Health Forum Gastein (EHFG) president.
As a policy advisor he serves on the European Advisory Committee on Health Research (EACHR) of WHO Europe and served on the Expert Panel on “Investing in Health” (EXPH) for the European Commission. At MAHE, India, he is the Founding Director of the Prasanna School of Public Health.
Diplomacy
The Role of Student Research in Shaping Diplomatic Discourse

Diplomacy is a complicated field that is always changing. At its core are the fields of international relations and negotiations. To make good decisions in this fast-paced, global world, you need to know a lot about different themes and points of view. One of the key drivers of this understanding is student research, which plays a vital role in shaping diplomatic discourse. This article explores how important student research is and how it affects diplomacy efforts.
Understanding Diplomatic Discourse
Before we talk about the role of student research, let’s get a handle on the idea of diplomatic discourse. This is the exchange of ideas, opinions, and negotiations between nations. The goal is fostering cooperation, resolving conflicts, and addressing global challenges. It involves diplomats, policymakers, and experts who engage in dialogue and decision-making processes to shape international relations.
Conducting a thorough investigation requires careful planning, data collection, and critical analysis. It is important to gather reliable and credible sources to support your research. To master the art of academic writing, you need to know how to make a research paper that combines solid research with clear writing. You can make a good contribution to your area of study by carefully interpreting and presenting your findings. A well-written research paper not only shows that you know a lot about the subject, but also adds to the larger academic discussion.
The Value of Student Research
1. Fresh Perspectives
Student research brings a fresh and innovative perspective to diplomatic discourse. When young minds start to learn about many different things, they often approach problems with an open mind and a creative spirit. This can lead to the generation of new ideas, alternative viewpoints, and unconventional solutions. Even those which may not have been previously considered by established diplomatic circles. Diplomatic talks could be more open-minded and focused on the future if they took into account different points of view.
2. In-Depth Analysis
Students often have to do in-depth research on complex global issues. This study goes deeper than a simple understanding and looks at how political, economic, social, and cultural factors shape international relations. It shows that you know more than just the basics about the subject. By thoroughly examining these factors, students provide valuable insights that can enrich diplomatic discourse and inform policy decisions.
3. Cutting-Edge Research Areas
Students are the first to look into new technologies, world problems, and new trends. Their research often focuses on human rights, climate change, sustainable development, and hacking. Which are of great relevance to diplomatic agendas. When diplomats use the results of student research in their discussions, they can stay up to date on the latest developments and adapt their strategies accordingly.
4. Bridge between Academia and Practice
Student research acts as a bridge between academia and practical diplomacy. It allows academic institutions to contribute directly to real-world challenges by producing research that is applicable to diplomatic contexts. This helps to build a more complete plan to solve global problems by making it easier for people to share information and skills.
Promoting Student Research in Diplomacy
To maximize the impact of student research on diplomatic discourse, it is important to create an environment that encourages and makes it easy for students to start their own projects and activities. Here are some things that can be done to get students interested in studying diplomacy:
1. Establish Research Programs
Academic institutions and diplomatic organizations can collaborate to establish research programs focused on international relations and diplomatic studies. These programs can provide funding, mentorship, and resources to students, enabling them to undertake high-quality research projects with direct relevance to diplomatic discourse.
2. Foster Collaboration
Encouraging collaboration between students, diplomats, and policymakers can enrich the research process. By putting on events like workshops, conferences, and lectures that bring together different partners, you can make it easier for them to share useful ideas and build important relationships. This collaboration ensures that student research directly contributes to diplomatic discussions.
3. Recognize Excellence
By recognizing and rewarding students for their great research in diplomacy, they may be more likely to study things that will have a big impact on the world. Institutions can bring attention to the best research results by giving out awards, grants, and publication opportunities. This recognition helps to make student study even more important to the international conversation by making it more well-known and legitimate.
4. Engage in Policy Dialogues
It is important to give researchers chances to talk about policy and take part in diplomatic forums. They get the chance to talk about their results, take part in conversations, and add their points of view to the decision-making processes. Student research and political talk are tied together in a way that is good for both sides. Diplomats and people in charge of policy can learn important new things from these talks.
Conclusion
In conclusion, student research plays a crucial role in shaping diplomatic discourse. Students contribute to the richness and diversity of diplomatic discussions. They give new points of view, in-depth analyses, and insights into areas of research. Promoting student research in diplomacy can help students reach their full potential. This can help answer problems around the world and put the power of young brains to good use. It is important that the international community recognizes and accepts the importance of student research as a catalyst for positive change in the field of diplomacy.
Diplomacy
Modern Diplomacy and the New World Order

There is no doubt that the international order is currently in a state of transition. The changes experienced seem to be the most significant in the past few hundred years. This assumption is predicated upon an objective fact — never before in the history of international politics has it included so many participants with different historical and cultural backgrounds. This means that we are not talking about another redistribution of power within a limited circle of states, but about a new distribution of power, capabilities and influence within a wider than ever circle of participants.
However, in practical terms, such large-scale changes result in a paradox: diplomacy is heavily influenced by tactical manoeuvring, rather than strategic considerations. This is especially noticeable in the example of the behaviour of Western countries; however, most of the rest are no exception. Even the actions of such powers as China or Russia, which by many indicators are truly examples of diplomatic conservatism, contain signs of not strategic, but contextual considerations. What can we say about small and medium-sized countries, some of which have even managed to become famous as skilful tacticians, making the most of the most ambiguous international situations?
Suffice it to say, the leading states will not determine the composition of the new world order alone; they have been joined by lesser-order predators, which are now in a state of constant manoeuvre. This, in turn, can lead us to one of two assumptions. Either this order is still very far from its ultimate form, or it is arising through a set of manoeuvres that seem insignificant from our aesthetic point of view, which are not the result of big decisions made by the wise and powers responsible for the fate of mankind.
Despite the fact that in popular literature, the ability to constantly manoeuvre is now, as a rule, one of the attributes of medium-sized states occupying an intermediate geopolitical position, it is precisely the large countries that have become true masters of this genre. Here we see that Europe, which despite its loyalty to transatlantic relations in the long term, certainly occupies first place. The main powers of the European Union, acting in an individual capacity or under the guise of European institutions obedient to them, are in a state of permanent manoeuvring, as the outer contour of the West. This is true in relations with China, Russia or other countries of the so-called world majority, and with their direct partners; they are constantly entering into bargaining relations with Europe’s powerful patron, the United States.
For the rest of the world, this creates the illusion that Europe can one day break away from America and embark on a relatively independent voyage. For the Americans themselves, it creates little additional opportunity or concern, but never leads to situations that threaten Washington’s monopoly on power.
For example, the visit of French President Emmanuel Macron to Beijing in the first half of April was certainly an example of such manoeuvring. The French head of state tried in every possible way to strengthen the idea among his Chinese counterparts that continental Europe can, at least tactically, act as something other than a territorial base for the realisation of American interests. In part, this was facilitated by objective economic opportunities that make cooperation with the Europeans beneficial for Beijing and the Chinese economy. The Chinese side remains somewhat confident that Germany and France are behaving desperately regarding Russia, precisely because they won’t consider a conflict with Moscow that could lead to dramatic consequences for them.
The Europeans are being gently pushed by the UK and the US towards a confrontation with China. For the European Union, going along with this would be economic suicide, especially given the current not-too-cheerful state of the socio-economic systems of most of “old Europe”. Moreover, the Europeans’ reluctance to refuse the benefits of cooperation with the PRC could even be seen during German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s visit to Beijing.
In addition, China quite rationally believes that the conflict between the West and Russia is more fundamental for Europe than the confrontation between the United States and China itself. Our Chinese friends are well aware of the history of relations between Russia and Western Europe, and understand that the hostility there emanates from the European states. Despite some positive experience of cooperation with Russia in the era when its behaviour was relatively convenient for the EU, the largest EU countries have always had their grievances with Moscow, perhaps even more serious than those of Japan, another American ally in the fight against the restoration of Russian influence and the destruction of American dominance in general. Russia objectively and historically is an adversary of Western Europe; this cannot be said about China, which simply due to its geopolitical position cannot cause serious concern. So the diplomatic manoeuvres of France and the EU as a whole will, of course, continue to be seen very positively by our Chinese friends.
Moreover, China itself manoeuvres in everything except for its strategic partnership with Russia, the true nature of which is hidden from outside observers by the exclusively trusting relations between our political leaders. Regarding all other issues, China is also advancing its long-term vision through decisions that may seem purely tactical. Moreover, as happened in the case of the historical rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, all the main features of international life are now contributing to the success of Chinese diplomacy. This will continue as long as Beijing can stay above the fight that the West and Russia are directly involved in over unfortunate Ukraine.
The United States is also conducting its own diplomatic manoeuvres, but, like Russia’s, they are more dangerous for global security simply because of the volumes of the deadliest weapons that the United States has at its disposal. Having proclaimed a decisive battle with Russia and an equally uncompromising confrontation with China, the US is also trying to play what enthusiastic observers call “subtle diplomacy.” However, if Europe relies here on its economic capabilities and certain charm of a sovereign player with a long history, then Washington manoeuvres in a deliberately brutal spirit, trying to play power games and pit everyone against everyone else. Of course, Washington succeeds less and less, but the resources accumulated over the past 50 years are still fantastically far from being exhausted.
Russia, in turn, is conducting its diplomatic manoeuvring by stubbornly refusing to “burn bridges” in relations with the West or damage the integrity of the world economic system. It has also demonstrates impressive tolerance towards those external partners that must take into account the wishes of the United States on the Russian issue, including even formally neutral countries that supply weapons to Kiev’s troops. In fact, only the diplomatic dialogue between Moscow and individual NATO countries has been completely stopped, and even there it was not done by Moscow, which emphasises that it is always open to resuming talks. Thus, almost no party involved is completely straightforward. In this regard, a relevant question that may confront experts of international politics is the following: are the general diplomatic manoeuvres simply part of the military activity that is growing on a global scale, or are they replacing the “big” negotiations about a new world order, about which theorists could dream of? It can be assumed that both are being done at the same time — to the particular chagrin of those of us who still believe that order in the world can be established through a single plan and rational, responsible calculations.
from our partner RIAC
-
Finance2 days ago
Will Egypt Join and Adapt BRICS Currency?
-
South Asia4 days ago
The Need for the Next SAARC Summit
-
New Social Compact3 days ago
Migration through the Prism of Feminist International Relations
-
Africa3 days ago
The Strategic Partnership between Eritrea and Russia
-
Middle East4 days ago
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Election Victory and Its Impact on the Region
-
Americas4 days ago
In a Topsy-Turvy World
-
World News3 days ago
British General explains how intelligence has shaped the Russia-Ukraine war
-
Africa3 days ago
African Agenda in G20