India has been a
non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) seven times
since 1950. Its current membership will end in December 2012. This membership
period is perhaps the most interesting period in India’s history of UN
membership of the Security Council. January 2011, started off with a wave of
unprecedented string of uprisings in North Africa and Middle East. What started
in Tunisia as a rebellion against the corrupt regime soon spread to the entire
region and came to be known as the Arab Spring. Sadly as the Arab Spring gave
way to Arab summer and winter, India watched the events from the sidelines or
sat on the wrong side of the voting table.
The very first
opportunity came up in shape of the Libyan crisis. As the Arab spring entered
Libya hundreds of civilians became target of organised massacre by Mr Gaddafi. In
middle of March 2011, Gaddafi forces announced a massive crack down on rebel
forces in Bengazhi (second city of Libya), which immediately deteriorated the
situation. The UNSC proposed to adopt a resolution (resolution number 1973) to enforce
a no fly zone. The Libyans wanted UN intervention, the members of neighbouring
Arab countries supported UN action, India however chose to abstain. The
argument used to justify abstention on voting was more of a lame excuse. India
said that the report prepared by the special envoy to Libya was not made
available and the secretariat has not made an assessment of the report. In such
a situation it will be unfair to take military action. India suggested political
efforts to handle the situation, while a city of 650,000 people was under
imminent danger from forward marching Gaddafi forces.
The second
opportunity came when the case of Mr Gbagbo came up for discussion. Mr Gbagbo
disputed the victory of Mr Ouattara, his political rival who won a presidential
runoff election in November 2010. Mr Gbagbo’s refusal to hand over power to the
legitimate winner (the election was monitored by international observers) started
a spate of political violence. Thousands of people were killed by supporters Mr
Gbagbo and hundreds of thousands fled their homes. The scale of violence was
grave enough to be termed as the second civil war of Côte d’Ivoire. The UNSC
adopted a resolution sanctioning military intervention to save civilians from
the ongoing killings. The situation in Côte d’Ivoire was clearly an anathema to
India’s democratic values. India was not a member of UNSC at the time the
resolution (sanctioning military intervention) was adopted. However, India
voted against another resolution (on 31st March 2011) referring the
case of Mr Gbagbo to the International
Criminal Court. In its speech on the voting floor India came across as a
country which preferred restrain even as thousands of civilians were killed or
displaced.
 |
| Let there be no vote |
Yet another
opportunity presented itself with intensifying of conflict in Syria. The Human
Rights arm of UN, The Human Rights Council on 23rd August proposed
to adopt a resolution to send an independent international commission of
inquiry to Syria to investigate alleged violation of human rights. Syrians have
been experiencing government crackdown ever since the protests first started on
26th January 2011. Thousands were killed, tortured and arrested by
August 2011. In its response to the resolution India said, “India’s traditional
position on country specific resolutions is well known. We do not regard
spotlighting and finger -pointing at a country for human right violations as
helpful. We believe that engaging the country concerned in collaborative and
constructive dialogue and partnership is a more pragmatic and productive way
forward...” India abstained from voting.
Beware of the foreign hand
Three crucial
votes and India played the spoilsport in all three. India however was not the
only country sitting on the wrong side of the table. Russia and China
consistently opposed most of the resolutions (it took a lot of effort to make
them support the no fly zone over Libya). On careful analysis all the three
resolutions were also an instrument of regime change. The UN on behalf of its
member states and with support of NATO forces successfully changed regimes in
Libya and Côte d’Ivoire. For countries like Russia and China this is their
worst fears coming true.
Both Russia and
China are accused of large scale human rights abuses, restricting free press,
restriction on free movement of people and above all murdering democracy. While
the Arab world was blossoming in its Arab Spring, China put extra policemen on
the streets to stop a Jasmine revolution. Election results in Russia were predefined
and Mr Putin decided to grab power for two more terms. Elections in China
happen every decade without a single vote being cast. With political opponents and
dissidents being sent to prison on frivolous charges both Russia and China are the
hotspots of absolute power. They would be the last ones to support any such
resolutions, which are aimed at altering the political framework of a country.
On the contrary
India is a shining example of democracy. Human right records put India much
ahead of Russia and China, India enjoys a free press and people are free to
move within the country. With all the good players on its side India still lost
the game. What went wrong with India? There can be many reasons as to why India
behaved the way it did. The reasons can be traced back to the cold war and beyond.
As a young
democracy India preferred to not align with any of the military blocs during
the cold war. Acting on the principle of non interference India together with
Egypt and what was then Yugoslavia started a Non Align Movement. This was a
bloc of recently independent colonies in Asia and Africa (mostly poor). This
bloc came to be known as the third world (the West and Soviet being first and
second). India wanted to shed its colonial baggage and march ahead. However,
later on India did suffer from some setbacks where the Western bloc meted out a
raw deal to India. The non cooperation of the West in the Kashmir issue at the
UN and later a war with China demonised it. India opposed whatever the West proposed.
This also led to India’s proximity with the Soviet Union during later years of
the Cold War.
Though India has
emerged out of the “Hindu rate of growth” in economic terms it still is stuck
in the cold war days when it comes to diplomacy. It still finds the concept of “sovereignty”
extremely touchy and sometimes misunderstands it. Political veterans still
refer to the “foreign hand” when situations go out of control (be it inflation
or FDI in retail). India still feels threatened by the West and its ideas.
However, India aspires to be the member of UNSC. But the question is, is India
ready for that position?
