India at the United Nations Security Council - You propose, I oppose

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 31^st 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 23^rd 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 26^th 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? 

India and its global ambitions

Yes, no, maybe…

The weeks that followed the fall of Mr Dominique Strauss-Kahn as the chief of International Monetary Fund and the subsequent world tour by Ms Christine Lagarde to drum up support for her election to the office, India joined the chorus of developing countries to have adequate representation. The bloc of developing countries (India, China, Brazil, Mexico, etc) was challenging the tradition where IMF was always headed by a European. Briefly Mr Agustin Carstens, governor of Mexico’s Central Bank tried to rally support from developing countries including India. However, none of the developing countries managed to arrive at a consensus and Ms Lagarde, was eventually elected to the office. In the mean while China decided to support Ms Lagarde’s candidature in return of a larger responsibility for China in the IMF.

India is often viewed as unprepared when it comes to multilateral decisions which have global implication. We have seen this in case of the EU-India free trade agreement, WTO’s Doha round and more recently the climate change summit. Long winded processes which seem to take for ever, due to lack of preparedness or vested interests or some time misplaced sovereign pride. India which has done remarkably well on bilateral fronts is severely lacking on multilateral fronts. That being the case, India’s global ambitions are only growing. For the past two decades India has been pressing for a reformed United Nations Security Council (UNSC) with a permanent seat for itself. India along with Brazil, Germany and Japan formed an interest group known as G4 to push for the reform and subsequent expansion of the UNSC. All countries on the permanent council support India’s candidature; however any reform in the near future is a remote possibility.

Running the extra lap

It is a well acknowledge fact that India has arrived on the global scene in the past two decades. It has acquired an enviable position of upholding democratic values and churning out a fast growing large economy from a country which was on brink of sovereign default. Most of the recent global initiatives of India have been largely trade and commerce centred. The world is yet to see India take an assertive and sustainable step in global diplomacy, some thing that the established and emerging world powers have already shown. India has traditionally shied away from any matters which can potentially (some times falsely assumed) upset its diplomatic equilibrium.

In the past India has given the excuse of having its hands full with housekeeping activities and establishing order with in the country. In the past two decades much has changed, both within India and outside. Indian diaspora is now much more active around the world, Indian trade and commerce has spread to once far off countries and Indian views are listened to around the world. India’s inclusion in the G-20 has further raised its profile. India’s contribution towards handling of the recent financial crisis has proved its abilities as a mature economic power to the world. Both the developed and the developing world see India in a different light now. It’s no longer an aid seeking and famine struck country of the 60s.  

The tiger sleeps on

With so many changes, India has surprisingly lagged in international diplomacy. It has always taken a reluctant and meek stand on matters of international importance. The latest being the abstention from the UNSC resolution 1973 approving a no-fly zone over Libya. India’s excuse was that armed intervention should be the last resort after the efforts of UN appointed envoy fail, which was not yet implemented. In a situation where a despot is hell bent on killing his own countrymen an armed intervention is more of a humanitarian effort than military one. People opposed to UNSC resolution can argue that past military interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan) have proved anything but useful. For every person sighting Iraq or Afghanistan there is Rwanda and Srebrenica where armed interventions have brought an end to genocides. No-fly zone over Libya was the best possible action at a time when Mr Qaddafi was killing his own country men. India missed the boat.

On other sensitive issues like nuclear proliferation too India has no consistent stand. India’s concern on nuclear proliferation ends at Indo-Pak border. To some extent India’s reluctance stemmed from sanctions imposed by the west after its operation “Smiling Buddha” in 1974. But in the aftermath of international recognition of India as an official nuclear power (in shape of Indo-US nuclear deal) it should now take a firm stand on the issue. It should have a clear policy on Iran and North Korea. So far nothing has come forth.

One thing that India has failed to leverage to its benefit is its unparalleled achievement in nurturing and maintaining democratic standards. India should play its democratic card at international forum to establish itself as a mature country, which believes in fair play and respects public involvement. This will help it balance against its biggest rival, China. While the Tibetan government in exile has its seat in New Delhi, India does not use it like China uses stapled visas for people living in Indian states of Jammu & Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh.

Its time India metamorphose itself into a country which has more than just cheap labour, growing auto market and consumers hungry for foreign products. Time has come that it takes on the world stage with confidence. It should stop bothering itself with myopic electoral gains while shaping its foreign policy. India has already lost time in catching up on the lost opportunities. The present reactive policy of India should shift to proactive and a widely thought through policy, which can support India’s claim to international institutions like UNSC, IMF or possibly G6 (G5 + 1).