Tuesday, 23 May 2017 New York Foreign policy decisions don’t always come wrapped as neat options prepared on the basis of projections made...
Tuesday, 23 May 2017 New York
Foreign policy decisions don’t always come wrapped as neat options prepared on the basis of projections made after substantial research and careful consideration. Many times, they entail choices between sub-optimal options that make decision-making difficult. As decisions on inter-state matters relate primarily to an external environment, even the most decisive of decision-makers tend to be cautious.
With authority and influence beyond national borders being diffused, the limits of power, when combined with the complexity of domestic inputs and dynamics, can often make for a tortuous decision-making process.
With national prestige being involved, risk aversion is the default option. However, a swift “no” in a well-oiled decision-making process can often be incorrectly characterised, especially in hindsight, as lacking adequate application of mind. Hence, “careful consideration”, bureaucratese for putting the matter on the back burner, is not an uncommon recourse.
If it reinforces the initial “nay”, then all ends well. However, if the process meanders and then, for any reason, results in a reversal of the conventional wisdom of a “no” with a “risk worth taking yes”, then the real challenge begins.
For me, this challenge begins today. Like Indian diplomats globally, we, in New York, too are following the developments in...
