India's UNSC bid creates noise every time there is a UN session in progress. But sadly, it creates noise only in India. Thats the irony of this bid which needs 2/3rd of 192 countries around the world to vote for India. Nobody is talking about it and nobody cares. It is important to discuss whether India really deserves that seat.
Agreed that 1 out of every 6 people in this world live in India, agreed that India is the largest democracy, agreed that India is a major contributor to UN peace keeping missions, but is that enough to lay claim on permanent membership to UNSC? Just because you have been a loyal employee in a company and have worked honestly and diligently for it doesn't give you the right to lay claim to the Board of Directors. You should be in a strategic role to do that. You should have helped the company at a higher level to grow its business, to see through some crises situations, or to enter new relationships. You should have done something that was impactful to the whole company.
Also getting a UNSC membership is not just about national pride. Politicians, especially in the developing countries, have a habit of painting a Utopian picture for the general public, taking them on fantasy rides, one after the other. And low literacy levels and low awareness levels in these countries do not help the situation.
India has to prove its case to become a permanent member with veto power of such an influential body.
What is India's approach towards other countries, what drives India's global relationships, what are India's ideologies, what principles does India stand for, these are important questions that need to be answered. Nobody knows what is India's stand on important issues such as the situation in Darfur, the Palestine-Israel conflict, the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many other such issues. Indian government didn't consider them important enough to be commented upon. There are always more pressing domestic issues. And I haven't heard India's stand being discussed or covered by media for any major international conflict.
India fails to impress even in its neighborhood. It has remained silent on the Myanmar issue. It didn't take a lead in helping to solve important crises such as the Maoist rebellion in Nepal and LTTE issue in Sri Lanka. Even India's neighbors don't consider it their Big Brother, forget about other countries around the world.
India is unpredictable. Change in ruling party changes the way India engages with other countries. Who would have predicted that politics within the ruling party would derail the historic nuclear pact with US and in the process, deny energy-hungry India access to crucial nuclear technology, and send mixed signals to IAEA, France and Australia who were ready to help India build the nuclear plants.
India has inward looking policies that put national interest before anything else. Policies related to other nations are driven by domestic policy makers who don't have an international outlook. One of the reasons why India developed diplomatic relationships with some countries was to serve the interests of Indians in those countries and these relationships haven't evolved beyond fulfilling the requirements of the local Indians.
India is just a big country that has existed in isolation for decades and has recently shown some economic growth and integration with the global society. But largely, India is still not influencing any country's foreign policy.
All is not lost though. Consistency is the mantra India will have to adopt to become a permanent member of UNSC. India has to show consistent behavior in all the things that it does that involves another nation. It has to show consistency in its stand towards foreign conflicts, in its economic policies that impact other countries and in its internal policies that are related to human rights, child labor etc. That is when nobody can oppose India's bid and India can proudly say that it deserves a permanent seat on UNSC!
Agreed that 1 out of every 6 people in this world live in India, agreed that India is the largest democracy, agreed that India is a major contributor to UN peace keeping missions, but is that enough to lay claim on permanent membership to UNSC? Just because you have been a loyal employee in a company and have worked honestly and diligently for it doesn't give you the right to lay claim to the Board of Directors. You should be in a strategic role to do that. You should have helped the company at a higher level to grow its business, to see through some crises situations, or to enter new relationships. You should have done something that was impactful to the whole company.
Also getting a UNSC membership is not just about national pride. Politicians, especially in the developing countries, have a habit of painting a Utopian picture for the general public, taking them on fantasy rides, one after the other. And low literacy levels and low awareness levels in these countries do not help the situation.
India has to prove its case to become a permanent member with veto power of such an influential body.
What is India's approach towards other countries, what drives India's global relationships, what are India's ideologies, what principles does India stand for, these are important questions that need to be answered. Nobody knows what is India's stand on important issues such as the situation in Darfur, the Palestine-Israel conflict, the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many other such issues. Indian government didn't consider them important enough to be commented upon. There are always more pressing domestic issues. And I haven't heard India's stand being discussed or covered by media for any major international conflict.
India fails to impress even in its neighborhood. It has remained silent on the Myanmar issue. It didn't take a lead in helping to solve important crises such as the Maoist rebellion in Nepal and LTTE issue in Sri Lanka. Even India's neighbors don't consider it their Big Brother, forget about other countries around the world.
India is unpredictable. Change in ruling party changes the way India engages with other countries. Who would have predicted that politics within the ruling party would derail the historic nuclear pact with US and in the process, deny energy-hungry India access to crucial nuclear technology, and send mixed signals to IAEA, France and Australia who were ready to help India build the nuclear plants.
India has inward looking policies that put national interest before anything else. Policies related to other nations are driven by domestic policy makers who don't have an international outlook. One of the reasons why India developed diplomatic relationships with some countries was to serve the interests of Indians in those countries and these relationships haven't evolved beyond fulfilling the requirements of the local Indians.
India is just a big country that has existed in isolation for decades and has recently shown some economic growth and integration with the global society. But largely, India is still not influencing any country's foreign policy.
All is not lost though. Consistency is the mantra India will have to adopt to become a permanent member of UNSC. India has to show consistent behavior in all the things that it does that involves another nation. It has to show consistency in its stand towards foreign conflicts, in its economic policies that impact other countries and in its internal policies that are related to human rights, child labor etc. That is when nobody can oppose India's bid and India can proudly say that it deserves a permanent seat on UNSC!
5 comments:
OK, everything that you say is right, but:
Is asking India to be better than the 5 other countries in the UNSC the solution? You say that India use international relationship for its own interest, but the 5 others do that like USA (Example: they tried to get the UN approval to get SAdam Hussein)or France. And India is a bid democracy and is almost the only one in Asia, that's essential. When UN was created after WW2, China became one of the 5 countries with a permanent seat, but 4 years later Mao (this serial killer) became the leader of this dictature and stayed in UN.
Maybe it would be easier for India to play a stronger role in the international community and in Asia if this great democracy obtain a place in the UNSC.
Anyway it will be difficult to get the agreement from China...
Well, India doesn't take a stand on major international issues because most of these "major issues" are nothing but bad blowbacks from bad US policies. You ought to thank the Americans for DESTABILIZING middle-east and in turn spreading more terrorism throughout the wrold.
Now, tell me what China's stand is on most of these international issues that you mentioned? What does China say about Darfur? Nothing. Matter of fact, China buys 2/3 of Sudan's oil and turns a blind eye to their problems. What does China say about Israel-Palestine conflict? Nothing. What about Iran and Afghanistan? Nothing. China continues to rapidly increase its stake in Iranian oil reserves while most European & American companies are pulling out to say away from controversial oil.
So, why does China deserve a permanent UNSC seat when it too doesn't take ANY stand on MOST of major international issues?
In principle, what Fred, Manon and Hitman say may hold true. But China doing less than its supposed to, doesn't make India's case better. Its like settling for the lesser evil...but then its still evil. Upholding human values is more important than short term gains. By putting pressure now, the world can make India a much more responsible nation/leader in the future.
If China is the benchmark of permanent seat behavior, India should get the seat tomorrow. So please stop setting different rules for India and talk some sense.
Taking your analogy of the company forward. Are you implying that every director must interfere and have opinions about every other employees life? You say 'big brother' like it's a good thing. That's just sad. When one is talking about a global elite the criteria has to be the influence a country is capable of exering, not it's willingness to exert whatever influence it has. The bar must not and can not be the number of guns or the number of chips on the countries shoulder. The bar must be whether the countries voice deserves to be louder than that of other countries. The US has played the role of a global policeman with far greater zest that the UNSC, it is clear though that internal affairs needs to look into a lot with a clean heart. Not taking away from anything they have done in terms of humanitarian aid or ridding evil that cannot be the yardstick to measure an important country. As the worlds largest democracy, as a role model in terms of what other countries must strive for in terms of ideology, as someone who knows the challanges of terrorism and overcoming great odds at a ramarkably short age the UNSC needs India perhaps as much as India needs the UNSC. It is sad though that your voice will find many echo's is a world where those who scream are heard more than those with much to say.
Post a Comment